
Gas&UKVlL 

Book X$~ 

Copyright N°_£< 

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



OUR DEMOCRACY 

Its Origins and Its Tasks 



BY 



JAMES H. TUFTS 

N 
Professor in the University of Chicago 




NEW YORK 

HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 
1917 



ttrfuJ 



TH2.7 



Copyright, 1917, 



HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY 



Published November, 1917 



0EC-3I9I7 



THE QUINN 4 BOOEN CO, PRE59 
RAHWftY, ft. i, 



A4778D0 v1 



PREFACE 

THIS book is not for the scholar. It is intended 
for the citizen — and the prospective citizen — 
who is willing to know better what his country 
stands for. It has little to say about the machinery 
of our government ; its main concern is with the princi- 
ples and ideas which the machinery is meant to serve. 
In attempting to trace the origins and significance of 
these principles which America means to us it draws 
upon materials from history, sociology, and politics 
which are familiar to scholars, but have not, so far 
as I am aware, been brought together into a connected 
view and presented in untechnical fashion for the gen- 
eral reader and the younger reader. 

The book is not a product of the war. It was begun 
before 1914 as a part of a larger study of " The Real 
Business of Living." But just now the real business 
of living for all of us is centering more than before in 
national ideals and national tasks. And although the 
purpose and plan of the book has been constructive 
rather than in any sense polemic, the conviction has 
grown that a juster and finer appreciation of democ- 
racy as contrasted with autocracy is certain to result 
from a study of what we have passed through and 
left behind in gaining liberty and self-government. 
Furthermore, most of the problems discussed are not 

iii 



iv PREFACE 

war problems. Great and imperious as war problems 
are at times like this they are yet simpler than the 
problems that lie back of them. The justification of 
war must be found in the principles which we seek to 
preserve. 

I desire to express my indebtedness to many col- 
leagues for helpful suggestions, but especially to my 
wife, who has read the proof, and to Mrs. Anna Bryan 
Ayres, who has aided in the preparation of the 
manuscript. 

J. H. T. 

September, 1917. 



CONTENTS 

PART I 

THE BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION, ORDER, AND 
LIBERTY 

CHAPTER PASE 

I Introduction 3 

II Early Life of Man 6 

III First Cooperation — The Clan and Its Customs 16 

IV The New Groups — Social Classes and the Great 

State 36 

V The Band of Warriors and the State ... 46 

VI The State as Source of Order, a Common Law, 

and Private Property in Land .... 55 

VII Ideals of the Warrior Class, of Knight and 

Gentleman '66 

VIII The New Cooperation: Town Life, Trade, Crafts 81 

IX Effects of the New Cooperation: Wealth, 

Skill, a Middle Class, a New Ideal ... 89 

X New Ideals and Standards: Dignity of Labor; 

Honesty and Fairness 96 

XI First Steps in Liberty 101 

XII Progress of Liberty: from Special Privileges to 

Equal Rights 117 

XIII Influence of Ideas upon the Progress of Lib- 

erty and Democracy 129 

XIV The New Meaning of Life Brought In by 

Liberty 141 

V 



vi CONTENTS 

PART II 
LIBERTY, UNION, DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

CHAPTER PAQB 

XV New Forces and New Tasks 147 

XVI Liberty 168 

XVII Development and Present Problems of Liberty 175 

XVIII First Steps Toward Union 183 

XIX The More Perfect Union: the Constitution . 192 

XX Growth in the Idea of Union 202 

XXI Present Problems of Union 208 

XXII Democracy as Self-Government .... 221 

XXIII Three Obstacles to Self-Government Checks 

and Balances; Invisible Government; Long 

Ballot 230 

XXIV Steps Toward Greater Self-Government Parties 

and the Presidency 241 

XXV Measures Proposed for Greater Self-Government 250 

XXVI Democracy and the Courts 255 

XXVII Democracy as Equality — Government for the 

People 268 

XXVIII Progress and Task of Democracy . ' . . . 284 

XXIX The United States and Other Nations . . 297 

XXX War and Right 316 

Index 323 



PART I 

THE BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION, 
ORDER, AND LIBERTY 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

THE business of being an American citizen is not Living 
what it was when our nation was founded. At in !776 
that time most men in this country were farmers. 
There were no factories, no railways, no cities of any 
considerable size. Practically all the people of the 
colonies were of one race and language. None were 
very rich and none very poor. They were separated 
from Europe by a voyage of months. The great tasks 
of men and women were those of the pioneer: first, to 
settle the wilderness, cut the forests, plant and harvest; 
and second, to establish homes, schools, churches, laws, 
and government. Their new nation was conceived in 
liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men 
are created equal. 

Today the work of getting a living is in many ways Changed 
less heroic than in the days of the pioneer. It does not conditions 
call for the same hardships; it does not get us up so se neW 
early of a winter's morning, it does not compel us to 
make our journeys mainly on foot or to transport our 
goods by oxen; it does not compel the housewife to 
know spinning, weaving, cutting and making garments, 
soap and candlemaking as well as cooking and house- 
keeping. But the very fact that all these kinds of 
work once done by hand and in the household, as well 
as many other new kinds of manufacturing which could 
not have been done at all in the old days, have gone 

3 



4 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

into factories ; that railways carry us and our goods ; 
that inventions have changed our ways of living and 
produced great wealth; that we now nearly half or 
quite half of us live in cities ; — all these changes have 
set new tasks which make living today a real business 
even more than it was in 1776. These changes have 
created needs for new laws, for new schools and uni- 
versities. They have made it necessary for the govern- 
ments of our cities, state, and nation to care for health 
and decide many matters that could formerly be left 
to each person to decide for himself. The great increase 
in wealth makes it easier for men to mistake what it 
means to live * * well " and so to decide what the real 
business of living is. 

The task of the citizen has also changed. The 
citizen of today must still think of liberty, union, and 
democracy, but in new forms. The great changes in 
the way of carrying on business and the great number 
of different races who now come to this country and 
become citizens bring new problems. We may not 
believe that all men are equal in all respects — and 
doubtless our fathers did not believe this either — but 
since we have equal votes we see the need of giving men 
equal opportunities. Finally the relation of America 
to other countries is no longer so simple as when it took 
months for a ship to cross the ocean. Our fathers came 
away from Europe to find freedom ; they hoped to keep 
it safe by holding aloof from Europe's affairs. We 
have learned that we cannot enjoy our freedom alone. 
Europe is so close a neighbor that freedom is not safe 
here unless it is safe there. We learned the value of 
union in our own land; now we see the need of world- 
wide cooperation to keep peace and promote general 
welfare. We believe not only that government by the 



INTRODUCTION 5 

people must not perish from the earth but that " the 
world must be made safe for democracy." 

To begin with a study of the way in which early man 
lived in clans governed by customs may seem to be a 
roundabout way of understanding our present problems. 
But in every field we find it one of the most helpful 
ways to understand any institution to compare it with 
earlier stages or with other institutions. Men did not 
learn cooperation or create liberty and democracy all 
at once. We can appreciate these more fully if we 
trace the main steps by which they were worked out. 
The main types of cooperation and union which men 
had already tried before the days of our American 
nation were three: 

1. The clan, in which men were controlled by habits 
and customs. 

2. The state, governed by laws, established by a 
king with a band of warriors. They made order but 
gave little freedom. 

3. The town, made up of traders and craftsmen, 
brought men together in a new group with more freedom 
and democracy. 



CHAPTER II 



EARLY LIFE OF MAN 



Our 

early 

ancestors 



The 

great 

inventions 



IN recent years we have come to know much more 
about our ancestors. The caves in which are 
found tools, weapons, drawings, and even paintings 
made by early men in Spain, France, Germany, and 
Great Britain, the lake dwellings in Switzerland, the 
piles of kitchen waste in Scandinavia, give a view of 
how the early dwellers in these countries got their 
living, what animals they hunted, what inventions they 
had. The discoveries in Egypt, Assyria, and most 
recently in Crete, show many of the earlier stages by 
which the wonderful civilization of those countries was 
built up. The men of the caves in Spain and France 
lived with the reindeer, the mammoth, and the bison. 
We know this because we find in the caves the cut or 
carved drawings of these animals on bone, and colored 
pictures of them on the cave walls. Early men used 
chiefly stone tools instead of metal. In many ways they 
probably resembled our North American Indians. The 
mounds in Scandinavia, Greece, and Crete show men 
later using copper or bronze, and finally iron. 

The extraordinary thing is that at a very early time 
men had made the most important inventions, so far 
as getting a living was concerned. For they had : 

First — Fire. We know this because there are ashes 
in the caves. 

Second — The bow and arrow, which enabled them to 
get food from animals and birds. We know this for 

6 



EARLY LIFE OF MAN 7 

we find the flint arrow heads like those used by the 
Indians. 

Third — Pottery. This also was similar to the pot- 
tery made so successfully by our American Indians. 

Fourth — Weaving. This gave clothing. 

Fifth — Taming of animals such as the ox for plow- 
ing, the horse for riding, the dog for hunting. 

Sixth — Boats for sailing over rivers and even great 
lakes or seas, and for aid in catching fish. 

Seventh — Among some groups, the use of metals, 
especially iron. In the very early times of our Euro- 
pean ancestors iron was not known, and the American 
Indians got on without it, though they made some use 
of copper. 

These seven discoveries or inventions were all means 
for getting a better living. They gave man power over 
nature. Besides these, men had one other great gift 
which enabled them to unite and aid each other, namely : 

Eighth — Speech. Animals use cries or gestures by 
which they can warn of danger or call to food, or call 
to their young or their mates. But human language 
^enables men to understand each other and work together 
far better than animals can. 

Ninth — And even in very early times men added 
Writing, at first with pictures, then with signs. This 
was useful for sending messages, but especially for 
keeping records, and so making men able to be sure 
about contracts and promises and in many ways to 
keep firmly in mind what had happened in the past. 

Nothing so important for getting a living as these 
nine was afterward discovered or invented until the 
steam engine added a new and great servant to man. 
This invention had its beginnings in a crude pumping 
engine about two hundred years ago, but it was not 



8 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Progress 
from 

savage life 
to 19th 
century 
was chiefly 
in social 
life 



Four 
stages up 
to 19th 
century 



The two 
events : 

(1) The 
Industrial 
Revolution 

(2) Found- 
ing of the 
American 
nation 



until improved by James Watt that it became really 
efficient, and then combined with the inventions for spin- 
ning and weaving to effect an industrial revolution about 
the beginning of the nineteenth century. 

In the thousands of years between the early uses of 
stone tools or first discovery of iron and the industrial 
revolution of a century ago men had made progress 
chiefly by discovering how to unite. They united 
mainly for two purposes : either for war in armies, or 
for trade and protection in cities. They learned how 
to govern and keep order. In cities they built beautiful 
buildings and gained skill in various crafts. They 
began to struggle for liberty. They found ways to 
make law protect them against rulers as well as against 
burglars and thieves. 

The main stages in man's progress in the real business 
of living down to about the beginning of the nineteenth 
century will then be: 

I. Early society in tribes or clans with its inven- 
tions, mode of getting a living, and customs for regu- 
lating life. 

II. Society in military groups when men had learned 
how to cultivate land and to unite into states. 

III. Society in towns where trade grew, and arts 
and crafts could be practised, and 

IV. First steps toward Liberty and Justice. 

This will bring us to the great inventions of about a 
hundred years ago. A new order begins then in the 
way of getting a living and this has brought our present 
problems as to what is the right way to do business. 
This brings us also to the foundation of our nation 
by the Revolution of 1775 and the adoption of the 
Constitution in 1789 which decided what sort of country 
we should have. The life of American citizens today 



EARLY LIFE OF MAN 9 

and the tasks which confront them are largely deter- 
mined by those great events. 

Beginning now our survey with a look at savage Savage 
life, we note that we do not have to go back so life 
very far into the past. It is not many centuries since 
most of our forefathers, if they were British, or German, 
or Scandinavian, or Slav, lived as savages or at least 
as barbarians. A little longer ago Greeks and Italians, 
and still longer ago Jews, lived likewise a savage or 
roaming life. Some had no iron tools, but used stone 
for axes as well as for arrow heads. In this they were 
like the American Indians. Like the Indians, most of 
them hunted and fished; like the Indians, too, they 
lived in clans or tribes and had customs of blood re- 
venge. We can use many features from Indian life 
to help us imagine how our own ancestors lived and 
what their customs were. 

One point we do well to keep in mind. When we 
speak of savages or indeed of people who lived long 
ago we are likely to think that they were very different 
from ourselves and perhaps quite inferior. But we 
must remember that our own ancestors lived as sav- 
ages ; so we cannot assume that the savage is necessarily 
inferior to the civilized man in his ability. And as 
regards the actual fact, to discover fire and how to 
use it, to make a bow and arrow, to make the first 
pottery, to weave the first cloth, and to make the 
first iron tools were as great achievements as man has 
since performed. 

The great difference between early men and civilized 
men today is not in their brains. The reason why the 
American or European today is able to make so much 
better a showing is because he has inherited so great 



10 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

a stock of ideas and ways of doing things. These 

inherited ideas come to us not only through books and 

The great through the teaching of our parents, and of skilled 

difference workmen, but also in our tools, our grains, plants, 

e ween an( j f ru ft s our wr itten language, our knowledge of 
savage and. 
civilized numbers, and in fact the copies or patterns for all 

men kinds of arts which are all about us. These stimulate 

the mind of the little child as soon as he opens his eyes, 
and a large part of the life of all of us consists in just 
walking up the stairs which our forefathers have built 
ready for us. Many of us never build a single new 
stair. The best of us build only a few stairs. 
Getting a In studying the life of early man it is natural to 

living in begin by asking how he got his living. We may con- 
ear y lmes ven £ en tly approach the answer by repeating the question 
in a more personal form and contrasting early with 
present life: What would a young man in early times 
expect to do for a living? What occupation would he 
follow ? 

The boy of today who leaves school, especially if he 
lives in a city, or goes to the city to seek his fortune, 
sees a great many kinds of factories, shops, and offices. 
But very likely he has to look a good while before he 
finds a place. A clever artist has sketched in a series 
of cartoons the history of a young high school grad- 
uate, going from office to office, and keeping up a 
plucky search for work for week after week. The 
difference between this condition and that of the boy 
in early society is that now there are many occupations 
but no sure place for any particular boy; then, there 
was only one occupation, but every boy or girl was 
sure of a place. 

There was only one occupation — rather there were 
two main sets of occupations, one for men and one for 



EARLY LIFE OF MAN 11 

women. The man in general had to protect the women 
and children, and to capture the game. As an Aus- 
tralian put it, " A man hunts, spears fish, fights, and 
sits about." The women gathered roots or seeds, 
ground them, cooked, wove, made baskets or pottery, 
carried water, cared for the children. And both men 
and women had to make the weapons or tools they 
needed. In many cases men and women were very 
careful not to have anything to do with the tools or 
weapons of the other sex. These were " taboo " ; it 
was regarded as dangerous for the other sex to touch 
them. A man might become weak if he meddled with 
woman's things. But practically all men in the same 
tribe did the same kind of work. 

The other interesting fact was that every boy was 
sure of a place. This was because the family or clan 
or tribe all hung together. As the children grew up 
they stayed with their family or clan. They did not 
go off to the city to seek their fortune. They might 
stray away in search of food but they seldom dared 
to get far from the main group, for fear of their 
enemies. This might sometimes make it hard for the 
family or tribe to find enough food for all. But if so 
they shared their plenty or their want. As Dr. East- 
man, himself a Sioux, says, " A whole tribe might 
starve; a single Indian never." One reason why this 
sharing was more possible than it is in civilized coun- 
tries was that land was not all divided up and owned 
by individuals as it is now. The tribes of Indians had 
their range of forest or plain, and knew that if they 
went beyond certain bounds they would get into the 
territory of other tribes who would very likely attack 
them. But within the tribe the separate Indians did 
not have their own private land, So when a boy grew 



12 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

up he simply went with the rest to hunt or fish, or 
ranged about for small game by himself. 

The day's A workman of today expects to work eight, nine, or 
work ten hours a day. A few years ago his day would have 

been much longer. The farmer began work about five 
and kept at it until after dark. The stores and fac- 
tories had similar hours. The writer was told the 
other day by an acquaintance that as a boy he worked 
in a woolen mill where he went to work at five in the 
morning and stayed until seven in the evening, stopping 
a half hour each for breakfast and dinner. Indeed, 
even schools kept early hours. At the academy where 
the writer's father prepared for college, the students 
rose for morning prayers at half past four in summer 
and at five the rest of the year. Now in savage life 
our ancestors kept no such regular hours. The men, 
especially, seemed to " sit about " a good deal, as the 
Australian said. And if you think of it, the work of 
the men was largely what civilized people call sport. 
It was hunting or fishing. There was a good deal of 
excitement about it and it necessarily came at irregular 
times, depending on the habits of game, or the sudden 
outbreak of war. When they did such steady work as 
rowing or carrying burdens, or hammering, men were 
very likely to sing and so relieve the monotony. The 
women, on the other hand, had much less exciting tasks. 
Most of what we call drudgery was done by them. 
For such work as grinding seeds or grain, kneading, 
weaving, washing clothes, they too had songs, and the 
rhythm helped them to keep steadily at their task. 

This does not necessarily mean that savages were 
lazy, or cruel to women, as it is often charged. Some 
savages were no doubt both, But the chief reason for 



EARLY LIFE OF MAN 13 

the division of labor was that the man had to do the 
fighting and hunting because he was the quicker and 
stronger. If he was to do this he must keep ready for 
it. On the march he must be able to repel attack. 
Hence he carried his weapons and the woman the other 
belongings. 

The materials out of which the savage made his tools Tools 
and utensils varied considerably, but the beginning 
seems to have been with stone, bone, shell, and wood. 
Think for a moment what this meant in cost of time 
and energy. On my table lies a stone axe with which 
I suppose Indians may have worked in the very spot 
where a sawmill is now whirring. Think what it would 
mean to cut trees with such a tool. To be sure, a 
savage did not attempt to cut down an entire tree. He 
burned the base of the tree and used the axe to help 
the work of the fire. So in hollowing out a log for a 
canoe, fire did the main work; the edges were kept wet 
to confine the fire to the mid part, and the axes or knives 
finished the task. But even so, it was a slow process. 
Or think of grinding in a stone mortar or with a hand 
mill all the grain to be used. 

In early society no one could plan to be a merchant Gifts as a 
or trader, because there was no such vocation. No mode of 
one made a business of purchasing wares in order to sell tracle 
them again at a profit. The early method of exchang- 
ing something that one man had for something that 
some one else had was by making a present, and then 
getting a present in return. Notice, however, that in 
savage life a man would not need to exchange presents 
with some one in the same tribe or household. For 
as regards food, all would share. " It is looked upon 
as a theft (or at least as a mean act) if a herd of 



14 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

cattle is slaughtered and not shared with one's neighbor, 
or if one is eating and neglects to invite a passer-by. 
Any one can enter a hut at will and demand food; and 
he is never refused." And if it was a tool that was 
wanted, it could be borrowed if there was one in the 
tribe. The only exceptions in which presents would 
be needed would be " when purchasing a wife and 
making presents to the medicine-man, the singer, the 
dancer, and the minstrel, who are the only persons 
carrying on a species of separate occupations." * Be- 
tween two different tribes hospitality even now is a 
common occasion for presents : " The stranger on 
arriving receives a present, which after a certain in- 
terval he reciprocates ; and at his departure still another 
present is handed him." And of course the exchange 
of wares through presents is not limited to savage 
tribes, nor to hospitality. We read in the Old Testa- 
ment of gifts to a conqueror, or to a fellow ruler. The 
Moabites and the Syrians brought gifts to David. 
Many princes brought gifts to Solomon, and notably 
the Queen of Sheba, who brought gold and spices and 
precious stones. Indeed the spices were long remem- 
bered, for the author of the book of Kings says, " there 
came no more such abundance of spices as those which 
the Queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon." And we 
have an interesting example of how presents did not 
always correspond to expectations. For Hiram, King 
of Tyre, furnished Solomon with cedar trees and fir 
wood and gold, with which Solomon built a temple and 
a palace. At the end of twenty years when these were 
finished Solomon gave Hiram in return twenty cities. 
" And Hiram came out from Tyre to see the cities 
which Solomon had given him; and they pleased him 
* Biicher, Industrial Evolution, pp. 60 ff. 



EARLY LIFE OF MAN 15 

not." It need not be pointed out how awkward a way 
this is of really getting just the thing that is wanted 
and at a fair exchange. Nowadays we do not like to 
receive really valuable presents except from members 
of the family or from very close friends. 



CHAPTER III 

FIRST COOPERATION— THE CLAN AND ITS 
CUSTOMS 

HOW much had early peoples learned about liv- 
ing together? How far had they learned to 
couperate? Today we belong to a family 
group, to a city or township, to a state, and finally to 
the nation. In this country it is the city or town that 
has most to do with our health and education. It is 
the state which makes the laws that make our lives and 
property secure. It is the nation which protects from 
any foreign enemy, which safeguards many of our 
liberties, and which is more and more coming to regu- 
late our railroads and larger activities of business. 
These groups — family, city or township, state or na- 
tion — are ways of uniting and cooperating which men 
have gradually worked out. How much of this had 
the savage discovered? 

The great group in early life was not the nation or 
state or city — for there were no such organizations — 
but the clan or tribe or kinship group. It decided 
where a man should live, whom he should marry, who 
his friends and foes would be, and by its customs regu- 
lated his education, his religion, and in fact nearly 
all that he did. It is then very important to under- 
stand this early clan which we may think of as the 
first plan of cooperation for union and government. 

What is a clan? Perhaps the simplest way to get 

16 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 17 

at this is to think of it as a group of relatives living 
together or near one another, mother, brothers, uncles, 
aunts, cousins. It is not just the same as a large The 
family, for the belief early grew up that a man should clan 
not marry a woman of his own clan. A family would 
have in it members of two different clans, that is, a 
husband and wife; the clan, on the other hand, would 
have in it blood relatives only, except as it included 
adopted members. Sometimes when a man took a wife 
she would be adopted into his clan. In this case she 
had to give up her own clan and would not be regarded 
by it as any longer a fellow kinswoman. But some- 
times the woman stayed at home among her own kin. 
In this case the husband was not adopted into the wife's 
family, but was received as a visitor and kept his kin- 
ship with his own clan. Then if a quarrel arose between 
his clan and his wife's clan he would have to side 
with his clan and she with hers. Early society 
was built on the idea that blood was the strongest 
tie. 

We do not mean to imply that all savage peoples 
have clan groups such as we have described. What we 
wish to say is that the clan was the typical group of 
early life. It came before there was anything like a 
nation, or a city, or a business group, or a labor union, 
or any other kind of union. The ancestors of all 
European peoples and of the Jews once lived in such 
clans or tribes. Walter Scott in the " Lady of the 
Lake " tells how a clan was roused by the signal of 
a fiery cross carried and passed on by swift runners : — 

" When flits this Cross from man to man, 
Vich- Alpine's summons to his clan, 
Burst be the ear that fails to heed ! 
Palsied the foot that shuns to speed ! " 



18 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

And in response to this message Clan Alpine gath- 
ered : — 

" Each trained to arms since life began, 
Owning no tie but to his clan, 
No oath, but by his Chieftain's hand, 
No law, but Roderick Dhu's command." 

Many of Scott's novels also suggest the strong ties of 
the clan which brought all the members to the help of 
any one member who was in trouble. A Scotch Mac- 
gregor or Macpherson is still proud of his clan even 
if he does not show it by fighting against other clans. 
Caesar says that among the Germans of his day, " No 
one possesses privately a definite extent of land ; no one 
has limited fields of his own; but every year the magis- 
trates and chiefs distribute the land to the clans and 
the kindred groups and to those (other groups) who 
live together." 

The song of Deborah in the book of Judges praises 
the tribes of Israel that came to help their fellow 
tribesmen in battle and blames those that were timid 
or selfish. In early Rome and Greece there were great 
clans such as the Julian " gens." It may safely be 
said that the ancestors of all of us once lived in this 
kind of group. Every one who as a boy has belonged 
to a gang or club or team has had something of the 
same feeling about standing by the group, keeping its 
secrets, or being loyal to the team. 
Origin and Early men formed these clans because it was the 
purpose of natural thing for children as they grew up to stay 
together, and when there were no other groups such 
as we have now — churches, political parties, nations, 
business firms — -the clan naturally was stronger than 
a family is with us. It served two great purposes. 



the clan 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 19 

First, it protected its members from other groups; in 
this it was like the nation today. Second, it controlled 
its members and made them do what the group as a 
whole thought right. Today this control is divided 
up among several groups. Parents are responsible for 
young children ; schools for children during part of 
the day; cities for the way houses are built, waste dis- 
posed of, and streets kept safe; the state looks after 
most of the regulations of business, and decides ques- 
tions about contracts ; the United States controls our 
railroads, our post offices, and a few other affairs. In 
early life the one group, the clan, had all the re- 
sponsibility. 

In particular the clan decided some such things as What the 
the following: dan 

(1) It decided where its members should live. decided 
Nowadays a man goes to live where he can find work. 

Very likely he does not choose to remain with his 
family. In early society every one had to stay with 
his clan unless in the case of the woman who might go 
to her husband's clan. But even then the young people 
could not go off and set up a house where they pleased. 
It must be either with the husband's clan or the wife's 
clan. If a man were to decide to live by himself apart 
from his clan he would have no protection and might 
be killed by any one. 

(2) The clan decided almost entirely what each of 
its members would do and what they would have to 
eat. For when a clan wanted large game all must join 
in the chase. It would not do for an Indian to stay 
at home or go off by himself if it was time for the 
great buffalo hunt. If the clan was a clan of shepherds, 
then every one must herd sheep. Many of the crafts, 
such as that of the smiths or metal workers, were fol- 



20 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

lowed by a whole clan. And when game was captured 
or wild rice gathered by the clan, the product was 
shared by the clan. 

(3) It decided very largely what every member must 
wear and what his or her ornaments or decorations 
should be. Nearly every savage tribe today has some 
characteristic manner of decoration or, as some might 
prefer to call it, of mutilation. Some wear scars of 
a certain pattern; others tattoo in a certain way; 
others knock out a particular tooth; others have a 
definite style for wearing the hair ; the Thlinkeet Indian 
women on the Pacific coast wear a large block of wood 
inserted in the lower lip. Fashion among civilized 
people is strict, but it changes more or less from year 
to year, and is fixed by certain classes in certain cities 
for those who wish to be in style. Costume and decora- 
tion among savage people are largely fixed by the clan 
and are unchanged from generation to generation. 

(4) It decided one's religion. For whatever the 
religion might be, the whole clan had the same belief, 
observed the same rites at birth, marriage, death, kept 
the same sacred days and festivals. 

(5) It decided who would be one's friends or foes. 
If any member of a clan were killed or wronged by 
some one of another clan, then it would be the duty of 
every member of the first clan to help revenge the injury 
upon the second. 

Customs How did the clan control its members? Today the 

city, state, and nation control and protect us by laws. 
The early clan had no written laws prescribed by a 
king, or passed by a legislature, or enforced by a special 
body called a court. Instead it had customs. Custom 
was king. The old men of the clan might have a good 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 21 

deal to do with making customs, but every one in the 
clan helped to enforce them. 

Custom is of course very strong today in certain Present 
parts of our lives. Why do men wear one kind of da y 
clothes and women another? There is a law on the cus oms 
matter, but we seldom if ever think of it, and perhaps 
many do not know of it : we simply want to wear what 
other men or other women wear. Why do Americans 
today eat chiefly with a fork, whereas not long ago the 
knife was more used, and among other peoples the 
fingers are the main reliance? It is the custom in our 
set. Why do we call it incorrect to say, " There isn't 
no such person"? The Greeks, who were very keen- 
minded people, used to put in two negatives into a 
statement to make it emphatic. It was the custom in 
Greece, but among us good speakers and writers do 
not do it, and we follow their practice. 

A great deal of our life is thus ruled by custom 
even now. But if we consider such illustrations as we 
have just given we note that in some of them there is 
no strong motive to act in a way which is different 
from the way the group acts, for example, shaking 
hands, while in others a violation might offend taste 
but would not really harm any one else, for example, 
eating with a knife. When we deal with matters where 
there may be a strong motive to do differently from 
the group, for example, in breaking a promise to pay 
back borrowed money, and where as in this case the 
failure would harm another, we do not trust to custom. 
Early man could get along better with custom because 
in small groups every one would know every one else 
and it would be almost unendurable to live in a small 
group if one got all the others down on him. 

Notice some of the customs of clans, If we should 



22 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



House 
customs in 
the clan 



Initiation 



Marriage 



go into a house among many peoples who now have 
the clan system we should be likely to find a group 
sitting in a fixed order — the father, the mother, the 
children, the guest have their definite places and would 
not think of sitting anywhere else: This is a very 
effective way of teaching every one to think of others, 
and to respect the elders. It is carrying farther our 
custom of giving a seat to an older person, or allowing 
him to go first through a door. It is a first step in 
manners and morals both. 

The initiation ceremonies are highly interesting cus- 
toms. They are practised among many primitive 
peoples to make boys full members of the group. Like 
the initiations in many secret societies, they are intended 
to impress the new member with his own helplessness 
and with the superior knowledge and power of the 
group. Among the Australians the ceremonies occupy 
weeks, and even months. A boy is kept much of the 
time hidden behind a screen of bushes, forbidden to 
speak except in answer to questions ; decorated with 
various totem emblems ; charged to obey every command 
and never to tell any woman or younger boy what he 
may see. At intervals he is brought out and watches 
performances by the men decorated to represent ani- 
mals who are supposed to be the ancestors of the clan. 
He hears mysterious sounds which are supposed to be 
due to spirits. He is finally told the important tradi- 
tions about the ancestors of the tribe and is shown 
some of the sacred objects in which the ancestral 
spirits are supposed to live. All these customs are 
well adapted to inculcate great respect for the tradi- 
tions of the tribe. 

All such clan groups have very strong customs about 
marriage. A Sioux Indian would not marry until he 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 23 

had done some brave or difficult deed to show that he 
was a man. The Sioux had a feast of maidens that 
no girl dared to attend if she had misbehaved and 
broken the customs for proper conduct. Practically 
all clans were very strict in forbidding their members 
to marry women from within the clan. This custom 
is called exogamy, " marriage outside." In Australia 
the native had to select his wife from a certain small 
group into which it was proper for him to marry. He 
would not dare to marry any one else. One very 
amusing custom among many savage peoples is that a 
man must not speak to his mother-in-law ; on the other 
hand, he is often expected to make her presents of 
food. 

Other important customs prescribe how to deal with Settling 
quarrels, for a group of people must have some way disputes 
to settle disputes. One way is to have a sort of regu- 
lated duel — the parties try to get the better of each 
other, but without actually aiming to kill. Among the 
Australians, if one man steals from another he some- 
times settles with the man who is wronged, in a duel 
with wooden swords and a shield. The old men or 
chiefs stand by and see fair play. This is a sort of 
lawsuit with weapons instead of words — or we might 
put the matter the other way and say that a modern 
lawsuit is a contest with tongues instead of with fists. 

But the most striking custom of all is the custom of Blood 
blood revenge. If a man in one tribe or clan injures revenge 
or kills a man in another, every kinsman of the victim 
is bound to revenge the wrong. If he cannot kill the 
murderer he kills some one else in the murderer's clan. 
Sometimes a payment of money is made to satisfy the 
relatives of the man who was killed. In this case every 
member of the kin is bound to contribute. This cus- 



24 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Taboos 



Why 
customs 
are 
obeyed 



torn of family feuds survives even yet in many countries 
of Europe, and in some parts of the United States. 

As already suggested, one large set of customs 
is with reference to acts that must not be done 
or with reference to food that must not be eaten. We 
might call these negative customs. They are often 
called taboos. Taboo means nearly " mustn't touch." 
Most savage peoples regard certain plants or animals 
as taboo; they will not eat them. In some of these 
cases the plants may be poisonous but in many cases 
no good reason is known for not eating the plant or 
animal. Possibly some one was once taken ill or had 
some bad luck after eating the plant, and this would 
make it appear dangerous. Other taboos refer to con- 
duct that it is feared will bring bad luck upon the 
group; marrying a woman from the wrong group is of 
this sort. A taboo is also a very convenient way to 
keep certain things for the priest or chief. If he says 
that the young cocoanuts are taboo, none will dare to 
pick them. 

Why did the members of the clan observe these cus- 
toms and taboos? For very much the same reasons 
that we conform to customs now. Three reasons are: 
(1) All of our group do it this way; (2) it always has 
been done this way; (3) it would bring trouble or bad 
luck if we didn't do it this way. (1) All our group 
do it this way. We all like to be " with the crowd." 
We don't like to be thought queer or different. We 
are all somewhat like birds or sheep that are lonesome 
if they are not with the flock, and follow wherever 
the flock goes. (£) It always has been done in this 
way. Habit is a strong master with all of us. It is 
easier to follow an old pattern in making a tool or a 
weapon or a jar or a blanket. And the more times 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 25 

we do anything in a certain way the harder it is to 
change. It seems to be the right way. If husband 
and wife have always been from different clans it seems 
as if they ought to be so. If the son has always avenged 
his father's murder then it seems to be the only thing 
to do. (3) It is liable to bring trouble or bad luck 
to break a custom or taboo. Some people today fear 
to begin a journey on Friday. Passenger steamers 
do not often sail on that day. Early men did not 
know so much about nature as we do. They sometimes 
were made sick by poisonous plants. They sometimes 
found no game, they sometimes could get no water. It 
was not strange that they believed that there was a 
right way to prepare food, to hunt, to fight, to receive 
guests, to marry, and that a wrong way would bring 
bad luck. 

The early group had several ways to make any 
member conform to its customs. 

First, it actually trained him how to do certain acts. How the 
Parents now train children how to use knife and fork, clan 
how to bow, how to speak correctly. Music teachers ma e * 3 
train pupils to sing. Athletic coaches train boys con f orm 
to play games. Soldiers are trained. The early group 
trained its children in dancing, in singing, in hunting, 
in religious ceremonies. 

In the second place, a group was " down on " any 
member that did not conform, and no one liked to 
have a group " down on " him. They might make 
fun of him, or cut him, or in different ways make it 
so uncomfortable that he was glad to get back into 
favor. 

Third, if this public opinion or ridicule was not 
enough the group might take more severe measures. If 
a man were suspected of practising witchcraft or if 



26 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

he should marry a near relative, the Australians might 
form a war party to go and spear him. 

Fourth, the greatest influence of all among savage 
peoples has always been the same, the fear that some- 
thing mysterious will happen if a taboo is broken. 
Formerly among the Hawaiian Islanders there was an 
extraordinary degree of such fear. It was known that 
certain men who had violated a taboo disappeared. 
No one saw them taken off or killed, but they never 
failed to disappear. As a matter of fact they were 
captured by secret agents who were always to seize 
them when alone, waiting if need be for a year, in 
order to carry out their plan secretly. But the mys- 
tery was a dreadful feature. In some cases a man 
would fall sick or die after violating some custom; 
he would be literally frightened to death when he 
found out what he had done. Of course, this would 
be regarded by the others as a sign that some mysteri- 
ous power was angry with any one who violated a taboo. 
Indeed one doesn't need to go to savages to find people 
who are afraid that certain acts will bring bad luck. 
Very likely we have all known persons who do not 
like to be one of thirteen at the table, or to wear opals, 
or to see the moon over the left shoulder, or to break 
a looking-glass, or to pass a graveyard at night. We 
perhaps smile at such fears ; but savage people take all 
their taboos and customs very seriously. 

How far had early man in clan life succeeded in 
laying the foundations for what has developed since? 
How far did he advance in getting a living? How far 
in uniting with his fellows? How far in developing 
the qualities of character which lie at the basis of 
citizenship ? 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 27 

In getting a living he showed great cleverness and Success in 
ingenuity. The inventions he made were remarkable. g ettin g a 
But far fewer than among civilized people could get llvm S 
a living. When people are comfortable and have 
plenty of food their numbers usually increase. If their 
numbers remain small it usually shows that food is not 
plenty, or else that they suffer from war or disease. 

The great lack among early men seems to have been Limits 
that they had not yet learned how to cooperate in a of earl y 
large way. Especially they had not learned how to c °°P era ' 
divide up within the clan into different crafts and 
trades nor to exchange goods with each other. And as 
for trade and exchange between clans, fear and distrust 
made that very difficult. Each clan was a sort of 
we-group that thought of other people not as cus- 
tomers or as friends but as an others-group. 

There are two ways in which men can cooperate to 
help each other in getting a living. The first and 
simplest way is by uniting their strength. Two men 
can lift a heavy log, or catch a big fish, or bring down 
a large buffalo better than one can. Savages co- 
operate in this way very well. The second way is 
by dividing up into different occupations and then ex- 
changing products. The farmer, blacksmith, shoe- 
maker, and weaver help each other far more than if 
they should all four try to work together on the farm, 
then at the forge, then at the bench, and finally at the 
loom. Or by a slightly different kind of division of 
labor men may divide up the parts of one task, as is 
done today in making shoes, and then put together the 
parts into complete products. The early men in savage 
or barbarous life did little of this second kind of 
cooperating. This made life hard, and kept them from 
getting on very far. For if one man has to do all 



28 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

kinds of work, or all parts of a task, he never can 
be as quick and expert as though he could specialize 
on one kind of work. 
Wastes A second great lack in clan life was shown by the 

of clan waste of time and energy in quarreling or war. Not 
warfare SU ch great wars as came later but more or less constant 
danger. This again was because man had not learned 
how to live in large groups. He had to spend much of 
his time watching the other fellow, that is, the other 
clans ; and even so, he was liable to be raided, his house 
pulled down or burned, and his crops destroyed. If 
one of his clansmen had injured some one of another 
tribe he might suffer for it although he had been quite 
innocent. It was only after man had found a way to 
keep peace, and had begun to make friends with other 
groups that he could make great progress in securing 
a comfortable living. 
Mutual Yet although the clan was too small a group for the 

aid best protection and prosperity, we must not forget that 

it cared well for its members up to the limit of its 
ability. No one in the clan or tribe was allowed to 
suffer as long as there was enough food or clothing in 
the tribe. Among civilized people a family may starve 
while the man next door wastes enough daily to feed the 
first family for a month. We aim through our gov- 
ernment and through charitable societies to relieve those 
who are in want ; but in every great city there is much 
suffering in winter. To ask for help is regarded as a 
sort of confession of failure, and some prefer going 
without food or fuel to the humiliation of asking aid. 
The savage doesn't feel that he is begging for a favor ; 
he has a right to his share so long as the supply lasts. 
Unfortunately if there were drought or failure of game 
or of a crop, the early group could not usually count 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 29 

on the help of other tribes. Civilized men can bring 
grain from all over the world in case a crop fails in one 
country. 

(1) In the small group, like the clan or tribe, the Success in 
members tended to unite firmly and to have a strong uniting 
group spirit. They were in some ways more loyal to J 1 1S 
their group than people today are to their city or 
country. They might be said to have more " public 

spirit " than persons in civilized society. The reasons 
for this come out if we ask what makes school spirit, 
or team spirit, or club spirit, in fact, group spirit of 
any kind. We usually find that when we (1) work or 
play in company, (2) cooperate in behalf of some 
common object, (3) celebrate in common victories and 
mourn in common experiences of trouble, we have group 
spirit. The tribes and clans do all these things. They 
fight for the clan; they hunt and fish together; they 
dance and sing together over their success in war or 
the chase; they mourn together in funeral ceremonies 
when one of their members dies. And besides all this 
they do not have so many private interests and so much 
private property. A civilized man can get on better 
in his private business if he does not give much time 
to the public. Sometimes he can make money by driving 
a sharp bargain with his city or his state. He may be 
in business partnership with men living in another city. 
So he is quite likely to find himself drawn in two dif- 
ferent directions. The savage is much more bound up 
with the success and welfare of the clan. 

(2) There were no such class divisions in the early No 
group as we find later between kings and subjects, or class 
between nobles and common folk; or as today, between dlvlsions 
rich and poor, employers and employed. The tribe 

might make slaves from other tribes, but slavery was 



30 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Group 
unity 



Bound by 
custom 



not common until man got farther along. The chief 
division was usually that between older and younger, 
but this was, of course, constantly shifting, and so 
did not make fixed classes. Fixed classes, which de- 
veloped later, by their contrasts make much unhappi- 
ness and envy that are escaped by the savage. We do 
not mind doing without things so much if all share 
alike. 

(3) The group customs and taboos held the mem- 
bers together. The customs seemed more sacred to 
them than many of our laws seem to us. In some tribes 
today there is much less crime, less murder, less steal- 
ing, less violence than in our great cities. The Hopi 
Indians live quietly in their villages and manage their 
members with far less annoyance to their neighbors than 
do cities of white folk. 

Over against these great achievements we must set 
some of the defects. 

The great defect of custom was that while it held 
people together and restrained unruly members it tended 
to hold every one back. If we do things just as others 
do, and if we do things just as they have always been 
done, we certainly shall not get ahead. The savage 
today who is bound by customs does not make progress. 
It is likely that our ancestors for a long time suffered 
from rigid habits of thinking and acting. The phrase 
" the cake of custom " has been used to denote this con- 
dition. It was as though customs hardened into a stiff 
cake which helped to hold people firmly together and 
kept them from going to pieces, but also kept them 
from going ahead. 

A second defect was that people in such a clan were 
too much alike. Just as we need to exchange work with 
one another in order to prosper 5 so we need to exchange 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 31 

ideas with one another in order to grow wiser. It stirs 
us to think when we meet a man from another country, 
or another line of business, or another political party. 
When people all did the same thing, and could not mix 
with strangers, they did not have so much to rouse their 
minds. 

A third defect was that when all in the clan did the Little 
same thing there was little chance for any one to develop oppor- 
any special gift or talent; he was obliged to hunt, or tumty 
make axes or bows or arrows, whether he had any 
talent for it or not. If a Newton had been born in 
such a tribe he would not have had a chance to study 
the movements and laws of the earth and moon. 
Beethoven could not have had a good opportunity to 
study music. John Marshall could not have studied 
law nor Henry Ford made automobiles. There was 
not much to appeal to a boy's ambition except success 
in hunting or in fighting. There was still less to appeal 
to a girl's ambition. There were not many windows 
through which to look out toward the future. 

Because custom was strong and because all did the Little 
same things there was not much choice and hence not freedom 
much liberty. We often speak of savage life as free, 
because there is no king and no policeman. But this is 
only one kind of freedom. The most important kind 
of freedom is to be able to choose among many good 
opportunities. If I am governed by custom, or habit, 
or instinct, I have little choice. And if there is only 
one kind of occupation, one place where I can live, one 
group that I can belong to, then I have little choice 
and little freedom. 

One other respect in which the early savage was not 
free was in his lack of knowledge. He was ignorant 
about the true causes of things that were going on — 



32 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



day and night, the change of seasons, rain, snow, dis- 
ease. This made him fearful of the unseen. He was 
superstitious. When a man was sick he was supposed 
to be attacked by evil spirits ; when things went wrong 
it was due to bad luck or " bad medicine " of some 
kind. This made him timid about trying new ways of 
doing things, and set him on the wrong track when he 
tried to cure disease. He was likely to pound on a 
drum to drive away the bad spirit instead of discover- 
ing the true cause. 



Character 
in clan 
life 



Kindness 



Loyalty 

to the 
group 



What qualities of character had the man of the clan 
developed? Evidently there would not be much chance 
to practise honesty, for there was little trading and no 
one had much property. But there were other good 
qualities which we prize today. 

First was kindness. This word means treating man 
as though he belonged to your kind, or your kin. The 
clansman shared with his kin. He protected his kin. 
He helped his kind. He stood by them. In our present- 
day life, when we compete with men in business, or live 
in such great cities that we often do not know our own 
neighbors, we sometimes forget to be kind. The man 
of the clan could not forget this. The defect was that 
he was not kind to people of other groups. Indeed 
it would have seemed to him quite absurd that he should 
be. What was needed was that men should learn to 
show kindness not only to their own kin — Greeks, Jews, 
Celts, white men — but to all. 

Close to kindness came loyalty — loyalty to the group. 
The man of the clan felt that the clan was more im- 
portant than he was. He must follow its traditions; 
he must fight for it. Now it is a great thing for any 
of us to belong to something greater than ourselves. It 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 33 

makes us larger men and women. For if we are thinking 
of the group as our group, if we make its causes our 
own, then we somehow for the moment widen out our 
thought and our sympathy. The early man's group 
was not a large one, and sometimes the main service 
it asked of its members was to make a raid upon some 
other tribe. But it was a school in which man learned 
to stand by his group. 

Third might be mentioned courage. For the clan Courage 
praised the brave man and ridiculed the coward. 

Fourth was respect for the elders. This was very Respect 
strong in the clan, and many of the customs, such as 
initiations, were well adapted to cultivate this trait. 

These traits belong to what we sometimes call group 
morals. They represent a great deal that is necessary 
in the good citizen, but they leave much to be done. 
For there were three lacks in the life of the man of 
the clan: First, he lacked knowledge about nature, and Lack of 
especially knowledge how to use the great forces of knowledge 
fire, steam, electricity. Science and invention must 
come to supply this lack. 

Second, he lived in too small a group, and did not co- The clan 
operate enough with his fellows. " Union is strength," to ° smaU * 
is an old proverb. It was proved at first in war; it is a group 
only recently that men have come to realize what it 
means in peace. Now the clan or tribe is an association 
which is strong as far as it goes, but in one respect it 
does not go far enough ; in other respects it goes too far, 
that is, it is too intense. Both faults seem to be due 
to belonging to too small a group and to too few 
groups. 

His group was too small. The people in one clan are Hence 
suspicious of those in another. They do not trade clannish- 
freely with them. They do not have a common judge 



34 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Too few 
groups 



Lack of 
independ- 
ence 

Tasks of 
progress 



to settle quarrels, and so they keep up feuds. The 
tribe is not strong enough to protect its members or 
to keep order and make the future secure. We have 
a word, " clannish," which brings out precisely this 
defect. Clannish people keep too closely together; 
they do not mix with others and get the stimulus that 
comes from rubbing shoulders with all sorts of people. 
Modern business, and modern protection of life and 
property, extend widely. For many purposes the whole 
civilized world is one great group. 

He belonged to too few groups. His clan was his 
family, business partnership, church, and political 
party all in one. It tied him up too tight. The " cake 
of custom " is likely to become too hard. A modern 
man by meeting a different set of people in the different 
groups is continually stimulated. His habits are more 
likely to get loosened up. He may be " bossed " in his 
business by a superior, but in his political party he 
may be a " boss , himself. A woman or man may be 
under some subjection in the home, but a leader in the 
church. The greater freedom of today does not come 
from not being in any group ; this leaves any one weak. 
It comes from belonging to larger and more groups so 
that one gets help on more sides. 

Third, he followed custom and so did not think for 
himself. The democracy in which we live today requires 
us to think and judge for ourselves. 

The great tasks of progress we can already see 
dimly will be along three lines : First, discovery and use 
of the forces of nature. This means science and inven- 
tion. Second, discovery and use of the forces and 
values of human nature, especially of association, — 
working together. This also means science and inven- 
tion, but of a different kind. It means building up 



THE CLAN AND ITS CUSTOMS 35 

cities and states. Third, the forming of laws and gov- 
ernments which shall maintain liberty, peace, good 
order, and justice, which shall promote education, in- 
tercourse, and communication, and at the same time 
be the free choice of the people who live under them. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE NEW GROUPS— SOCIAL CLASSES AND 
THE GREAT STATE 



(1) Agri- 
culture 



(2) Social 
classes 
and the 
State 



THE first step above the life of the clan or tribe, 
which hunted or fished, or fed its flocks, or 
gathered wild rice or grain wherever it could, 
was twofold: 

(1) Instead of roaming or moving restlessly on 
where there was game, or where they could escape 
enemies, clans settled down, and built houses instead 
of huts or wigwams. They usually settled in villages. 

(£) Men began to break over the clan boundaries 
and form larger groups. They did this in two ways : 
they conquered other groups and made slaves or serfs ; 
they united in larger groups for fighting. These larger 
groups were not made up on the basis of kinship ; they 
were bands of warriors from several clans. These war- 
riors had to have a leader or king. And out of such 
bands of warriors and their king came a new kind of 
grouping of men which we call the State. 

Both slavery and states came largely from fighting. 
It may seem then that it was war that pushed mankind 
up this next step. It is true that it was by war that 
men enlarged the clan and made the nation, at the 
same time making slaves and serfs of those whom they 
conquered. But the real gain was not due to war. 
War was a very wasteful way of doing what men 
might have done more easily by trade and agreement 
if they had only been wise enough. The real gain was 



SOCIAL CLASSES 37 

that men learned to form larger groups, and to co- 
operate on a larger scale. 

Let us look further, first at the village group or 
village community, then at the making of slaves and 
the making of the state. 

When we think of a farm in America we usually Village 
think of the farmhouse with its barn, standing alone community 
with no neighbors very near, or at most there may be 
three or four houses at a cross-roads. But this was 
not the way those of our American Indians lived who 
had begun to raise Indian corn. It was not the early 
plan, and in many parts of Europe it still is not the 
plan. When in early Europe, Teutons, or Slavs, 
or Celts, and perhaps before the Celts, still earlier 
dwellers in Britain began to cultivate the soil, it was 
probably as kin-groups or clans. In Scotland, Wales, 
and Ireland the clan life survived long, and Walter 
Scott tells us of the Highland clans each living in its 
own glen. Sometimes a clan of English seems to have 
settled in a neighborhood group. If the clan of 
Buckings or Birmings or Billings settled in a spot or 
" home," this would be called Buckingham or Birming- 
ham or Billingham. And the tie of kinship would lead 
them to build their cottages or houses close together. 
Then instead of dividing off the land into complete 
farms, entirely separate, with all of a man's land to- 
gether, they followed a plan which in many ways was 
better for pioneers. They set apart one kind of land Common 
for plow land, another for grass, and left the rest, fi el ds 
" the waste," for pasture. Each man had a share of 
plow land, a share of grass land, and could pasture 
his cattle upon the common pasture land. Hence a 
man's plow land might be in one part of the community's 



38 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

land, and his grass land some distance away. There 
are still some signs of the old " common fields " in 
England with the ridges which marked the borders 
between the plow lands of the different cottagers. 
Early settlers in New England brought over some of 
this community plan. They frequently laid out a 
" common " like Boston Common, and when they settled 
a new town, they did not attempt at first to keep their 
cattle in private pastures. They had brands by which 
to distinguish their cattle, and then turned them into 
common pasture or " waste." The village community 
is still found in Russia. A man does not own his own 
land; the group owns it and allots shares from time to 
time to the members to cultivate. 

But there would be all sorts of forces at work to 
bring in neighbors who did not originally belong to the 
clan. Especially when, as was the case in England, 
fighting men settled down in a region, there would be 
more or less mixing of different clans and of the older 
dwellers in the region. Neighborhood came to be more 
important than kinship. 

If each clan had settled down peacefully in a village 
by itself, not disturbing its neighbors and not inter- 
fered with by other clans, history would have been very 
different. We can easily see what happened if we look 
at early settlements in this country. A group of 
families would settle in a town and stay until their 
children grew up. If there were two or more sons, 
either the parents or some of the sons would then push 
Moving on to a new location farther west. In this country 
west there was plenty of land and this could be done without 

fighting. Or if the pioneers encountered Indians, the 
Indians could move back. 

In Europe there was no such room. A clan would 



SOCIAL CLASSES 39 

soon grow to be too numerous for its land and would 
begin to crowd upon others. Some, like the Norsemen, 
would seek room by sailing away in ships, plundering, How 
capturing men for slaves, or settling down in a colony clans 
as chance offered. But the greatest tendency was for sou g nt 
several clans or tribes to unite, make a combined raid, 
and thus find new homes. The people whom they con- 
quered might either be killed, or taken and sold for 
slaves, or kept on the land to do the hard work. This 
happened when Israel invaded Palestine, when the 
Saxons invaded Britain, and once more when the Nor- 
mans invaded England. Even among the conquering 
clans there would come to be leaders more powerful 
than common men. For it seems to be only in rather 
small and peaceful clans that there are no classes. To 
get a definite picture of how this process of conquering, 
and serf or slave making worked out, let us imagine 
ourselves in England seven or eight hundred years ago. 

If you were to go into a village or hamlet in early The 
England, you would find most of the dwellings small Hall 
cottages. But there would be one called the Hall, which and the 
with its barn and other subordinate buildings would be 
much more spacious, even if it were far from elegant 
according to modern standards. Here would live some 
one called the lord. Further scattered over the coun- 
try would be found castles, still larger and built for 
military purposes as well as dwellings. Here is evi- 
dently a class of men set apart on some basis. You 
might see in a village in America the same contrast 
in the size of houses, but it would not mean the same 
thing. Today it would mean usually that the man in 
the larger house had gained more wealth, by manu- 
facturing or trading, and had chosen to buy or build 
the larger dwelling. In the eleventh century, it would 



40 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

usually mean that the man in the hall or castle had 
been a successful soldier, who had helped the king, 
and had been rewarded by being made a lord with im- 
portant rights over the village and all the land near by. 
The modern owner of a large house may own much 
land, or he may own only a small lot. He may chance 
to be a judge in his town or county, but the chances 
are he is not. He may happen to be chosen chairman 
of the town-meeting if he attends, but the court and 
town-meeting are not likely to be held in his house, 
and if he is chairman it is because he is chosen, not 
because he has a right to be always chairman. Suppose 
now there is an alarm of war. The dweller in the large 
house is no more likely than any other to enlist in 
the army, and if the government should make a 
" draft," as it is called, of troops, he would be just as 
likely as any other, but no more likely, to be selected. 
The Lord In the early English hall or castle the lord was 

of the a judge and held the court in his Hall. He presided 

Manor a j. ft\e village meetings, for the court was a sort of 

village meeting rather than what we understand by a 
court of law. If there was war he was expected to 
march to the support of the king and to take with him 
a large number of his " vassals " or servants, all armed 
and equipped. Finally, although the king was sup- 
posed to be the supreme lord or owner of all the land, 
the lesser lords, who lived in the halls and castles, had 
rights over the land of their " Manor " or district, and 
were thus like the king, lords of the land, who later 
came to be landlords. The dweller in the Hall was 
therefore a judge, a leader of the military forces, and 
a landlord. 

If you should go into the cottages instead of the hall, 
you would find that almost all the dwellers had shares 



SOCIAL CLASSES 41 

of land. But you would find that whereas they worked 
for themselves on this land about half the time, they 
worked the other three days of the week for the lord 
and received no wages. The women also worked a part 
of the time at the hall and received no wages. Also, 
if you suggested to them to give up their farms and 
move away, you would be surprised to learn that they 
had no right to do this. And if you saw a bright- 
looking boy and told him that he ought to study and 
become a scholar, you would be told that he had no 
right to do this without the permission of the lord 
who lived in the hall. People of this sort who were 
" bound to the land " were called " villeins." They Villeins 
were half-free, for they worked in part for themselves 
and had rights in the land ; they were seldom sold. But 
they were not free to leave the Manor, and must work 
certain days for the lord. In the twelfth and thirteenth 
centuries the law came to treat them almost as slaves. 
They made up by far the largest number of the people 
of England eight hundred years ago. If your ancestors 
were English, they were probably most of them villeins. 

Were there no free men in England except the lords? 
There were a few, but only a few when William the 
Conqueror took a kind of census of England in 1086. 
There were a few of the clergy who as a social class 
stood close to the gentry. There were a few men who 
tilled land but could sell it and go where they pleased. 
There were indeed nearly as many slaves as there were 
" freemen." The slaves differed from the serfs or vil- 
leins in that they did not belong to the land, and might 
be sold. 

The exact numbers of these different classes in Eng- 
land in 1086 can be estimated from the survey which 
William the Conqueror had made of the land and its 



42 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

various kinds of tenants. The book of this survey is 
called Domesday Book. It shows the following classes : 

1. Gentry and Clergy 9,300 

Made ud of i Tenants in chief MOO 

Made up ot -j Under tenants 7900 

2. Free holders and Yeomen 35,000 

Made ud of i Freemen 12 > 000 

Made up ot -j Socmen 23j000 

3. Half-free or Unfree 259,000 

( Villeins 169,000 

Made up of < Cottars and 

( Bordars 90,000 

4. Slaves 25,000 

Altogether there were then 284,000 more Or less unfree to 
44,300 free— about 7 to 1. 

The striking thing is that the great majority of the 
people were villeins, bordars (who had smaller plots 
than the villeins), and cottars (cottagers). The two 
main classes were the gentry, who ruled and came more 
and more to own the land, and the villeins, who were 
obliged to do the farm work. How can we explain 
this difference in classes? There was nothing like this 
in the simple kinship group of the savage. 

The great explanation for the difference in classes, 
and for the fact that a few men were found ruling 
over a great number of men, is that a new force had 
been discovered. We think of steam and electricity as 
extraordinary forces ; and they have worked a great 
change in modern life. But probably they have had 
far less influence than the force of association or co- 
operation. The early kin group had a certain degree 
of cooperation, but the Band of Warriors made a new 
and more powerful kind of group. A small number of 
trained fighters acting as a compact band could conquer 



SOCIAL CLASSES 43 

a far greater number, less united and less well trained. 
In the ancient world Alexander and his Greeks gave a 
famous example of what such a band could do under 
a brilliant leader. Csesar and his Romans gave another 
example. 

England was conquered several times by successive 
bands of warriors. The Celts conquered a dark, squat 
race of earlier people ; the Angles and Saxons con- 
quered the Celts; the Danes conquered a considerable 
part of the Anglo-Saxons ; and finally the Normans, 
who were a sort of high-grade military specialists, made 
the most thorough conquest of all. What effect would 
conquest have upon the conquerors and what upon the 
conquered ? 

In savage life practically all the men have two oc- The 

cupations: they help get a living by hunting; they warrior 

protect the group by fighting. A group which has class 

begun to farm and also become somewhat more war- , . 
° . . . . working 

like may still combine getting a living with fighting. c i ass 
Of one German tribe, we read, in Caesar, that each year 
half the men cultivated the fields, while the other half 
was under arms; the next year these groups would 
change tasks. But history shows that this is not usual. 
The tendency is for the fighting men to form a separate 
class and leave most other kinds of work to another 
class. This was so common in the Old World that when 
Plato was planning an ideal state he thought the nat- 
ural main division of classes should be into warriors or 
defenders, on the one hand, and farmers, mechanics, and 
traders, on the other. In savage society men usually 
had the rather exciting work of hunting and fighting; 
whereas safer, and also, it must be said, less exciting 
tasks, were left to women. It is highly probable that a 
specialist in fighting will want to leave such monotonous 



44 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

and tedious tasks as plowing, and cultivating, and gath- 
ering crops to some one else. How can he manage 
this ? The way is simple. 

The conquering band of warriors makes slaves or 
serfs of the conquered and requires them to do the 
steady, monotonous work. In Africa, Egypt, Babylon, 
Israel, Greece, Rome, and Western Europe, the story 
has been similar. For example, in Egypt: 

" The stone-cutter, who seeks his living by working in all 
kinds of durable stone, when at last he has earned some- 
thing, and his two arms are worn out, he stops; but if at 
sunrise he remain sitting, his legs are tied to his back. 
When the (mason's) work is quite finished, if he has bread, 
he returns home, and his children have been beaten un- 
mercifully (during his absence). The weaver within doors 
is worse off there than a woman; squatting, his knees 
against his chest, he does not breathe. If during the day 
he slackens weaving, he is bound fast as the lotuses of 
the lake; and it is by giving bread to the doorkeeper that 
the latter permits him to see the light."* 

Villeins But apparently slavery of the extreme type was not 

the rule in England at the time of the Norman conquest. 
The more common condition of the conquered English- 
men was that of serfs or villeins, as we have seen in 
the Domesday Book records. The word commonly used 
for them was " Native," which would go to show that 
any " native " Englishman, as distinct from the Nor- 
man conqueror, was regarded as unfree. In one respect 
the life of the villein was not so hard as that of some 
free persons today, for he had a plot of ground, some- 
times as much as thirty acres of plow land, and so was 
reasonably sure of enough to eat. But, on the other 
hand, he had not only to work for the lord about half 

*Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, p. 284. 



SOCIAL CLASSES 45 

his time, but he had also to contribute in various other 
ways to the lord's property. Moreover he had to attend 
his lord's courts and if he had any quarrel with his 
lord, was likely to get the worst of the decision. The 
fine-sounding provisions of the Magna Carta which 
guaranteed certain rights to the " free " man were of 
no help to the villein. He was not free. 

The Band of Warriors has thus proved to be a power 
to make some men lords and others serfs. 



CHAPTER V 
THE BAND OF WARRIORS AND THE STATE 

THE band of warriors did more than make lords 
and serfs ; it made a king, and a state or nation. 
For in order to succeed the band must act as 
a team, as one man. And this means that it must be 
directed by one man who has a plan, and has also the 
necessary power to have his orders obeyed. When a 
country has been conquered the leader and his band 
continue to rule. Together they make up a new kind 
of group called the state. As head of the state the 
leader is called a king. 

The The state with the king at its head is called a " po- 

ruling litical " society. It is different from the early kinship 

° UP group with the old men at the head ; it is different from 

the neighborhood group. It is, or rather was, at first 
a military group ; then it undertook to govern. It 
made governing a business, just as merchants made 
trading a business or weavers made weaving a business. 
It did not destroy other groups unless they resisted. 
It allowed the village to carry on its affairs much as 
its old customs prescribed; it allowed the villagers to 
till their lands on the old plan of common fields, pro- 
vided they also worked for the lord a certain part of 
the time. And for a long time there was dispute as 
to just what were its powers and rights with refer- 
ence to the other great organization of the Middle 
Ages — the Church. 

46 



WARRIORS AND THE STATE 47 

Because it was at first a ruling group it did not treat 
all people in the country as citizens. It did not give 
all people equal rights before the law; far less did it 
give all people over twenty-one years of age, or even 
all males over twenty-one, a share in the government. 
In these respects it was very different from a demo- 
cratic state of the present time in which the ideal is 
that all who live in a country (unless citizens of some 
foreign nation) should have the rights and privileges 
of citizens. The early state included only a part of 
the people; later it took in more and more from those 
groups which were at first outside. 

In particular, there were three classes which at first 
were only partially in the state : the villeins, the clergy, 
and the merchants. And of course women, with certain 
very interesting exceptions, were left quite out. They 
had few rights, and again with interesting exceptions, 
no share in the government. 

(1) The villeins were in one respect directly under Villeins 
the control of the state: if they committed a crime and tne 
they could be punished by the king's courts. But it state 
did not work both ways. The king would not protect 
them against wrongs unless these amounted to injuries 
against life or limb. In fact they were not regarded 
by the lawyers as having any right to own property. 
There might, however, often be disputes between a 
villein and his lord as to the amount of service the 
villein should give, or as to his right to pasture cattle 
and sheep upon the " commons " or common ground of 
the manor. Suppose, then, that you are living on a 
manor as a villein and have such a dispute. Suppose 
that the lord takes away one of your cows. Or, if you 
have provoked him, suppose you find yourself even 
shut out from your house and a servant of the lord 



48 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



occupying it. What can you do ? You might complain 
at the lord's court ; but if the lord himself has put the 
other man in you will receive little attention. You 
cannot go to the king's court unless the lord or his 
man actually has struck you. Much less, of course, 
will you receive any protection if you are a slave. 

(2) The priests and "clerks " were in the church, 
and the church had its own law and own head. It was 
for a long time a matter of dispute whether the king 
and his courts had authority over priests in certain 
cases. For a long time the church had control over 
wills, marriages, and morals, as well as over heresy, 
and thus had a certain sphere reserved from the power 
of the state. 

(3) Merchants and traders were usually in early 
times strangers or foreigners. In Athens they were 
not made citizens, but formed a sort of middle class, 
neither citizens nor slaves. In England merchants for 
a long time had laws of their own, distinct from the 
laws of the land. These laws of the merchants were 
the customs which had come to be observed by mer- 
chants of certain ports. After a time these came to 
be adopted as a part of the regular laws of the state, 
but as merchants were often foreigners it was natural 
to treat them as a different class. 

(4) It is scarcely necessary to say that women had 
little relation to a military state. A wife was supposed 
to be not under the king's protection, but under the 
protection of her husband, and a daughter under that 
of her father. If a vassal died leaving an unmarried 
daughter she became the ward of his over-lord, or of 
the king if her father had held his land directly from 
the king. A married woman for a long time could not 
own property while her husband was living, though a 



WARRIORS AND THE STATE 49 

widow might manage property. The Abbess of a con- 
vent might manage property and send vassals to the 
king, and thus become a more active member of the 
state. 

Although the state was thus at first a band of war- The state 
riors with its king, which cared little for villeins and expands 
merchants except to squeeze labor or money out of 
them, and even looked with contempt upon priests as 
being of no use as fighters, it soon began to change. 
As we have said, this group made it its business to rule, 
and the business expanded. The king and his helpers 
kept doing more and more things and in this way came 
to have more and more to do with all classes of people. 
They sometimes put other groups out of business, and 
sometimes took them into partnership. Little by little 
the people who at first merely dreaded the king and his 
court — particularly when these spoke a different lan- 
guage, as the Norman kings did in England — came to 
look to the king for protection. At first only the 
warriors were loyal; merchants and villeins had no 
such feeling and so no such duty. Later, when the 
villeins gained the stand of freemen and so had more 
rights, they too could feel loyalty. When merchants 
were granted favors by the king they were willing to 
help him with money; they also could be loyal. The 
boldest step taken in England toward bringing other 
groups under the state was the act of Henry VIII in 
putting himself at the head of the Church as well as 
of the State. The church had come to own a great deal 
of land. The king took this away and gave it to his 
supporters. 

In this country, except for a short period in some 
of the first colonies, the state and the churches have 



50 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

kept fairly separate. The Constitution says that Con- 
gress shall have no power to establish a religion. Our 
fathers knew by experience that it might be dangerous 
to religious liberty to give the state power of that sort. 
But in earlier times in Europe the state was eager to 
control men in every way possible. 

But aside from such a great and sudden expanding 
of the, state as taking in the whole church and making 
a national church out of it, the state kept growing in 
many ways. The king's courts gained at the expense 
of other courts ; the king received taxes from more 
people ; the king had dealings with the traders ; and, 
most important, the king got together a great meeting 
of the lords, the clergy, and representatives from the 
principal communities (shires or counties and boroughs 
or towns). This last was called a Parliament and came 
to be, in time, the great governing body of the state 
in England. Our Congress and state legislatures are, 
in many respects, copied from it. 
The The way in which the king at the head of his war- 

king's riors gradually came to control more and more the 

affairs of all sorts of men is at first surprising. Ap- 
parently it was not for the most part because the king 
or his advisers thought it was right; it seems to have 
been very largely, first, because it increased the king's 
power and, second, because it paid. Take, for exam- 
ple, the courts. Besides the king's courts there were 
also church courts, merchants' courts, and manor 
courts presided over by the lord of the manor. Fees 
were collected for hearing cases, and in the case of 
felonies, such as murder, there was not only damage 
to be paid to the relatives of the man killed, but a fine 
to the king. The king constantly endeavored to get as 
much of all this business as possible because the fees 



courts 



WARRIORS AND THE STATE 51 

and fines were profitable. But to hear all the cases 
would tend to bring more and more people under the 
king's direct power, and also under the king's protec- 
tion. More and more people would look to the king 
as the defender of their rights. 

The king took a great interest in promoting trade, The king 
and partly for the same reasons that he tried to extend promoted 
the range of his courts. He wanted to get more money. 
He got money from both the English and the foreign 
merchants. The English merchants wanted to have the 
exclusive right to sell at retail in their own towns. 
That is, they wanted a monopoly. When the merchants 
of London or of Bristol or Yarmouth wanted this privi- 
lege, they were willing to pay the king money for a 
charter which would give them a monopoly, except at 
fairs or with other special limits. 

On the other hand, the king liked to have foreign 
trade coming into the country for several reasons. For 
one thing, he collected a heavy revenue from it, called 
the customs (and this name is still used for tax on 
imports). Again, it was thought a good thing for the 
king and the state to have ships and sailors. One way 
to encourage shipping was to increase the demand for 
fish. To bring this about a curious law was passed 
which ordered all persons to fast on Friday, Saturday, 
Ember Days, and in Lent — that is, to eat fish instead 
of meat — under penalty of a fine of ten shillings and 
ten days' imprisonment. This was declared to be for 
two reasons : " considering that due and godly absti- 
nence is a means to virtue " and considering also espe- 
cially that " fishers and men using the trade of living 
by fishing in the sea may thereby the rather be set on 
work." 

Besides regulating commerce with other countries, 



52 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

the king tried to regulate industry inside the country. 
Some kings brought into the country weavers from 
other lands who were skilled workers, and thus pro- 
moted the development of weaving much faster than 
the town gilds would have allowed. Gradually, indeed, 
the old gilds, which were at first chartered by the king 
and which controlled their own members, were dissolved, 
and the state itself undertook to regulate the trading, 
on the one hand, and the workmen on the other. As 
the state was at first limited to the upper classes, we 
should expect this regulation of wages to be in the 
interest of landlords. But the general tendency of 
the state has been to discourage any intermediate 
groups which it does not control. And many of the 
present problems of the state law in relation to cor- 
porations and trade unions are affected by this. 

Coinage Closely connected with trade was the king's activity 

in providing coins. For a time this, too, was re- 
garded as a way by which the king might make a profit, 
and some kings thought it a shrewd scheme to make 
coins of less than standard weight and pocket the dif- 
ference in value. Henry VIII was perhaps the worst 
offender. But it came to be held that to debase the 
coinage in this way was bad policy. A national system 
of coins of uniform weight was much better for trade 
than a system in which each town or district had its 
own coins. It made for easier cooperation and there- 
fore was a gain when it was finally established. 

Taxing Taxing was another way in which the king came to 

deal with more and more people, and gradually to get 
the help of more people in governing. At first the king 
did not raise money by a general tax, as our government 
raises funds now. The king had a great deal of land, 
for, of course, when he conquered a country he would 



WARRIORS AND THE STATE 53 

take a large share for himself, or grant it to his fol- 
lowers on condition that they pay him rent or " aids." 
When the Domesday Book was made, the king of Eng- 
land had over 1,400 manors. And when he went from 
one of these to another, as he did frequently, it was 
expected that the people along the route would provide 
entertainment. As he traveled with a large company, 
this entertainment was not exactly a pleasure to the 
hosts. " At the king's approach," wrote an Archbishop, 
" thanks to this accursed prerogative, there is general 
consternation; men fly to hide their fowls and eggs; I 
myself shudder for the people's sake." 

Then, too, like every feudal lord, the king collected 
" aids " from his tenants when the tenant's son was 
made a knight or his daughter was married. Wedding 
presents are nowadays sometimes expensive, but if an 
officer could collect, as the law then fixed it, " twenty 
shillings from each knight's fee," which would amount 
to something like one twentieth of the value of all the 
land, it can be seen that a good haul would result. 

Because the king owned so much land, and had these How 

claims to " purveyance " or hospitality, and " aids," taxing 

it was thought he ought not to demand further taxes. enlar & ed 

. the state 

In England it was urged that ' ' the king should live of 

his own." If the king had been able to do this it might 

have been very unfortunate. For, although the people 

objected strongly at times to paying taxes, it was 

because the king needed more money than his own lands 

would bring, and was willing to grant privileges in 

exchange for money that the people were able to gain 

more and more rights. As it was usually the merchants 

and town dwellers who had the most money, the king 

had to consult more and more with these men who had 

not at first had anything to say about the government 



54 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

of the state. He summoned representatives of the towns 
as well as of the counties to meet him. He urged them 
to grant money ; they petitioned for relief from various 
grievances. If the king wanted to get their money he 
must listen to their petitions. When these petitions 
were granted, they became laws. In this way the " Par- 
liament," as the gathering of representatives was called, 
came to have a share in making laws. The state came 
to include merchants as well as warriors. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE STATE AS SOURCE OF ORDER, A COMMON 
LAW, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 

TODAY most of us live without fear of being at- 
tacked by raiders from the neighborhood ; we do 
not expect to be robbed when we go on a journey 
nor to have our homes broken into while we are asleep. 
We do not carry weapons when we go to our work, and 
perhaps have two or three armed guards to protect us ; 
nor do we build our houses in such a way that we can 
command the entrance with a gun. We make windows 
large enough to let in light instead of making narrow 
slits in the wall. If we sell goods to a man who refuses 
to pay, or if we work for a man who does not give us our 
wages, we can sue him, and if we can make it clear to 
the judge and jury that the man is attempting to 
defraud us we may expect that the court will compel 
him to pay his debt. 

All this is part of what we mean by peace and order. 
It is now so common that we take it as a matter of 
course. But it has not always been so. It was the 
state which undertook first to defend the country against 
foes and raids from without and then to keep peace 
and maintain good order within. In tracing the 
progress of the state in performing these tasks, illus- 
trations will be taken chiefly from early England, be- 
cause our own institutions — our laws and government — 
came to us largely from that country. 

(1) The state gave to its members greater security 

55 



56 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Protection 
from 
foreign 
enemies 



from outside enemies. The early clan, as we have seen, 
tried to protect its members by revenging injuries, and 
it had customs which kept order among its members. 
But there was more or less constant quarreling between 
clans. There was no certainty that a man could 
harvest his crop. His hut might be burned any night. 
He dared not go beyond the bounds of his own clan, 
for then he had no protection. It might seem at first 
that it would not make things any better to have a 
king and army, for the king and army were at first 
really plunderers on a grand scale. Yet, as matters 
worked out, there was a decided gain. There was still 
fighting, but the state substituted wars between the 
fighting specialists for petty feuds. The wars did not 
discourage all farming nor break up the life of the 
common man so seriously as did feuds. Trade and 
travel over a large area would be kept open, even if 
England was at war with France or Scotland. The 
king and his band would protect their own country, and 
they were strong enough to keep out foreign raids and 
keep down robbers, thieves, and murderers. 

The question might indeed be raised : Did it, after all, 
matter much to the common people whether the king 
who ruled them called himself king of England or king 
of France? Was it not as bad to be squeezed by one 
as to be plundered by the other? When we look back 
and note how men could get only a little more than they 
needed for food and shelter ; when we consider how little 
they have had to spend for comforts or for education, 
and then think what an enormous sum has been used 
in fighting and in preparation for fighting — it seems 
as though common men had paid a high price for defense 
from foreign powers. Indeed, the common people often 
took little interest in the king's wars. Nevertheless 



THE STATE AS SOURCE OF ORDER 57 

there is one great difference between being ruled by the 
king of the country and being raided by a foreign king. 
Foreigners would come, kill, plunder, and go away with 
no idea of sparing any one for another raid. The king 
of the country would wish his people to be at least pros- 
perous enough to increase his power against other 
kings. And, as a matter of fact, the king came to feel 
pride in his country. So, although supporting a king 
was an expensive business, it was apparently the only 
way to provide security when men were roaming about, 
looking for plunder, and thinking no more of robbing 
and killing other groups than of hunting deer or bears. 

(2) The state kept order among its subjects and Keeping 
protected them from robbery and violence. In early order 
times in England there was no government strong enough 
to protect innocent people from being robbed or killed 
if they went from home or from their town. When the 
Norman kings conquered England, and began to rule 
the country far more strictly than any English or 
Danish king had ruled, one of the first steps was to 
make order. " The good order that King William made 
must not be forgotten," said the Peterborough Chron- 
icle. " It was such that any man who was himself aught 
might travel from end to end of the land unharmed; 
and no man durst kill another, however great the injury 
which he had received. " Order was the first thing to be 
secured; men could not trade or travel unless they 
could be safe and keep their goods safe while going 
from place to place. 

The way in which it came about that to kill or rob The 
was thought of as not merely an injury to the victim King's 
or his family but also a wrong to the public is very Peace 
curious. There was an old doctrine that a man had a 
right to be free from attack in his own house. To 



58 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

assault him there, was a breach of his peace. The origin 
of Che feeling about this may go clear back to the 
animal world. A dog, or even so timid a beast as a 
rabbit, will fight better on his own ground. The ag- 
gressor frequently acts as if he knew that he was out of 
his own bounds. 

So the king would have an especial right to have 
peace in his own house. It was an easy step from this 
to extend the house that the king lived in to the house 
or precincts of the king's court; then to the king's 
highway, to the king's servants, and to the markets held 
under his protection. Finally, what was a privilege of 
the few, and of a small region, was held to cover all 
men and all places in the kingdom. If a man wanted 
to get the powerful help of the king's courts, he could 
claim that the king's peace had been broken. This 
made it far more dangerous to rob and kill. At first 
this " peace " of the king was supposed to hold only 
while the king was alive. When a king died there was 
no king's peace until the new king was crowned. Hence, 
there was sometimes a sort of " open period " as we say 
now with reference to shooting game. When Henry 
I died in 1135 " there was tribulation in the land, for 
every man that could forthwith robbed another." 
Curfew Besides punishing crime, the state aimed also in many 

and ways to prevent crime. A curfew law compelled all to 

frank- cover up their fires and stay in after eight o'clock in 

the evening. One of the chief means of keeping order 
was a system of small responsible groups. By an in- 
genious change of the old principle that a man's kin 
were responsible, the state required every man, with a 
few exceptions, to belong to a small group called 
" frankpledge," or sometimes " tithing," which could 
be held responsible. When any man was accused of a 



THE STATE AS SOURCE OF ORDER 59 

crime and did not appear for trial his tithing had to 
pay a fine. It can be imagined that the " tithingman," 
the head of this group of ten or twelve, would keep a 
close watch over the group. It is interesting that the 
early New England towns always elected a tithingman 
whose chief duty seems to have been to keep order in 
the meeting-house. 

(3) The state brought about a Common Law. How Common 
did it come about that one system of law held for Law 
the whole country? In early days there were a great 
many different " customs " of different places or groups, 
but no single law of the land. A " court " was a sort 
of town meeting or county meeting. There were no 
lawyers, no judges, no jury, no witnesses. The meet- 
ing voted what should be done. Now the king was a 
great landholder and also had a great many officers. 
He, then, held a court just as a lord or sheriff held a 
court. 

If the king could not always hold court himself he 
had representatives to preside for him. The next 
step was to send these justices around the country 
to hold court. So long as each village or county held 
its own court, it would keep its own customs. The 
northern part where the Danes settled had a Dane law, 
the county of Kent had its customs, the West had its 
customs. Some towns would have special tolls and 
rules. But when the king's justices judged cases they 
decided by what they called the custom of England. 
They followed the same rules, no matter where they 
were holding court. These rules or customs which were 
common to the whole country were called " common 
law." The king's courts which worked out this common 
law had a reason for hearing as many cases as they 
could. It was so poor a reason that it seems quite un- 



60 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

dignified, not to say disgraceful. The reason was that 
it paid. If a man wanted to bring a suit he had to pay 
a fine, and if a man was found to have broken the peace 
he had to pay a fine. So the king's court was eager 
to do a large business. 
The But if you do not have a monopoly, you cannot have 

king's a l ar g e business unless you sell what people want. The 

king's court did not at first have a monopoly even of 
murder trials. There were other courts. But it was 
often the case that a man could not get justice in the 
other courts. Then he would try the king's court, which 
was often more satisfactory than others. In time it 
came to be held that any one might purchase a " writ " 
of the king's court, and by it try to get justice done. 
Though if a man was not exactly sure what to call the 
injury that had been done him, he ran a risk of buying 
the wrong document. It was something like buying 
shoes for another person without knowing what size 
would fit. We might think justice should proceed by 
asking both sides simply to tell their stories, and then 
having the judge ask questions and decide what is fair. 
This was not the way the courts got at it. The man 
who brought the case had to charge the other with 
some specific kind of wrong, and then prove this. But 
the important thing was that all the king's subjects 
had a right to claim his justice. 
Majesty Why was the common law better than the old cus- 

of the toms? There is more authority in law. It comes to us 

now as the command of the whole people. In early times 
it came as the command of the king. And because the 
king was usually believed to be appointed by God to 
rule, his commands were regarded as sacred. This made 
men more afraid to break the law. With the king's 
authority back of it, the common law was thus better 



law 



THE STATE AS SOURCE OF ORDER 61 

adapted to the larger group. Custom could control 
small groups who spoke the same language, and were all 
kin or neighbors. It would not have been equal to the 
task of controlling large groups made up of different 
races or tribes, speaking different dialects, not knowing 
each other, and not having common ancestors or com- 
mon traditions. 

The common law was thus stronger than custom. It Law 
was of course likely to favor the king and the ruling fairer 

class. But there were two forces at work to make it a f 

. , , custom 

fairer than the customs of smaller groups. 

The very fact that it was national helped to make it 
fairer. If a law is going to affect a whole realm, people 
will be more careful in making and executing it, and 
judges under such a law will also be less likely to be 
influenced by prejudice against enemies, or by favor 
for their friends. 

And another thing that helped was that judges were 
appointed to give their time and thought to hearing 
cases and declaring the law. These judges were at 
first churchmen, — bishops or clerks (as the clergy 
were then called). They studied not only the cus- 
toms of England, but the law which the church used. 
They studied, many of them, the old Roman law 
which grew up when Rome ruled the civilized world. 
And they got from this the idea that cases should be 
decided not only by custom but by what was reason- 
able as well. So there was a little element of progress 
along with the idea that the old customs ought not 
to be changed. Men are so fond of what is old and 
so fearful of the new that it is very hard to introduce 
a change in law, even when it is known that the old 
way began in savage and barbarous days. 

The common law became also a defense of liberty, 



62 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

It might be supposed that the judges who were ap- 
pointed by the king would always be on his side, if 
Law there was a contest between the king and other 

and parties. But strangely enough they came to think 

er y much more of following the rules and customs of the 

realm than of doing what the king wished. The very 
fact that the law was common to the whole country 
made it a stronger defense when men relied upon it 
to aid them in resisting the king, just as at first it 
was a stronger instrument for enforcing order. The 
way in which the jury system came to be introduced 
will be described in a later chapter. But it may be 
mentioned here as one of the ways in which the king 
and the state helped on the cause of liberty, although 
it was not intended for this purpose and was at first 
stoutly resisted. 

Land- The state had a great deal to do with changing 

owning the plan of holding land. The early idea was that of 
holding land in common by a clan or village. Our 
present plan is what we call private ownership. Ex- 
cept in such cases as parks, public forests, school 
grounds, and a few other public plots, all land in this 
country is privately owned. By the old plan it 
seemed that no one really had a right to sell land, for 
this would be depriving the children of the clan of 
their rights. Today we buy and sell land freely; 
and this is in many ways an advantage. For it cer- 
tainly stimulates a man to improve land if he knows 
that he himself will gain by draining, fencing, and 
enriching it. Moreover, when land is bought and sold 
freely it is more likely to get into the hands of men 
who will make some use of it and will not let it lie idle. 
How has it come about that we now own land? We 



THE STATE AS SOURCE OF ORDER 63 

do not talk of owning the air, and a private individ- 
ual cannot own a navigable river, or a plot on the 
high seas. 

When people lived in kindred groups or clans, Clan 
especially if they lived a hunting or pastoral life, 
each group might have a district where it hunted, or 
gathered fruits, or pastured its flocks. It would keep 
others out of this district if possible, and feel that it 
was on its own ground. But the individual members 
of the clan would not have their separate plots. 

When groups settled down to cultivate the land it Village 
was, as we have seen, the custom to have the plow 
land in open fields with strips of grass between the 
holdings of the different dwellers. There was besides 
this a large area of " waste " which was a common 
pasture. There was then much land which was simply 
in common, and some which was " held " by the 
dwellers in the village community in the sense that 
they plowed it and harvested it. But they could 
not have sold it. 

When the king and his warriors conquered a coun- Lords 
try, the king considered that it was his. He ap- of the 
pointed his men to rule districts, just as the President 
of the United States appoints a governor of Alaska. 
There were two important differences, however. First 
the duke or baron collected his own pay from those 
under him. The amount which his tenants were to 
pay was largely fixed by custom, but he was not 
limited to a fixed sum. He got what he could, paid 
over a fixed sum to the king, and kept the rest. It 
was not the idea at first that he owned the land; he 
" held " it from the king or from some one superior 
to himself. In some offices called " fee offices " we 
still have a survival of the old days when a govern- 



64 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

ment office was a means of making an indefinite 
amount of money out of people. In most offices 
today, however, the officer is paid a fixed salary. 

The second important difference is that when an 
American governor or judge dies he is not usually 
succeeded by his son. Even if the governor has lived 
in an executive mansion, as the old baron lived in a 
castle, his family expects to leave it when his term 
of office expires. On the other hand, the king's 
officer would in some cases be an old clan chief, and 
this office was hereditary. Or even if this were not 
the case, the strong chief would want to hand his 
power, his castle, and all his possessions down to his 
son, and as the king himself exercised this right, it 
was the natural thing for the lords to seek to exercise 
it also. When the son was already in possession of 
the castle he would have a decided advantage against 
other claimants. If the son or heir of the lord should 
always succeed him it might easily come to be thought 
that the county in some sense belonged to them. 
When the office of governor or judge is not passed 
down in this way there is little chance for such an 
idea. Hence out of these two ideas of being lord 
over the land and of being the hereditary lord came 
the idea that the landlord " owned " the land. 

In the earlier years of Norman rule there was a 
difference between the lord's own " demesneland," 
from which he had the whole produce, and the parts 
of the manor which were cultivated by free tenants 
or by villeins. And there was the " waste " on which 
both lord and tenants pastured cattle. In one way 
or another, sometimes by mutual agreement with 
tenants, sometimes by sheer " grab," the common 
fields and the " waste " were inclosed. Instead of 



not 
absolute 



THE STATE AS SOURCE OF ORDER 65 

being ruler, the landlord became the private owner. 
Some land, of course, came into the hands of small 
owners, but the larger part came under the ownership 
of the great landlords. In England this has survived in 
great measure to the present day. 

In America we began, for the most part, with private Private 
ownership of land, and various laws have since been ownership 
passed to encourage this. Indeed, it is only recently 
that we have come to realize that some kinds of land, 
especially forests, ought to be kept by the public. But 
we have one reminder of the fact that this owning of 
land is not absolute. For if the city or town or state 
or nation needs land for public purposes, such as a 
school, or street, or park, or post office, the land may 
be taken, even if the owner does not wish to sell. In 
such case the owner of course must be paid a fair price, 
but he has to give up the land. 

The state which began in such an unpromising fashion 
as a band of warriors, who were often in plain language 
robbers or pirates, came thus to be the defender of 
people against violence, their protector through the 
common law, and the means of fixing private property 
in land. The great power of organization and coop- 
eration proved that it could be a benefit to the whole 
country although it was at first used in the interests of 
a few. 



warrior 
class 



CHAPTER VII 

IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS, OF KNIGHT 
AND GENTLEMAN 

Ideals TTT is evident that in such a society of warriors the 

of the principal business of life would seem to be fighting. 

It was not raising grain or breeding sheep or cat- 
tle ; nor was it trading or manufacturing ; nor was it the 
advance of knowledge or invention. The warriors who 
made slaves or serfs had found out how to make others 
work for them. It was far more exciting and interesting 
to fight or hunt than to plow or tend sheep. It was 
natural that a band of warriors united closely together, 
and forming an upper class group should have strong 
ideas about what a warrior should be and do. It was 
natural also that they should look down upon common 
people and slaves. It was natural that men whose chief 
business was to fight for the king and the state should 
think that this was the most important thing in the 
world, and should begrudge any rights or privileges to 
those who were not in their set. The ideals that such 
men built up for themselves and passed on to us show a 
mixture of good and evil. They were good in so far as 
they really embodied the new power of uniting men with 
their fellows. They were evil in so far as they went 
only halfway, relied upon force instead of upon mutual 
confidence and benefit, and in so far as they were the 
ideal of a small class only. 

These ideals of the warriors were honor, courage, 

66 



IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS 67 

loyalty, and chivalry. Fine and noble words surely, yet 
they need scrutiny. 

Honor is a word which, in the first place, means, " to Honor 
esteem " or " to have high regard for." If we choose 
a man to some high office or trust him as our leader, we 
do so because we honor him. Then the word comes to 
mean the qualities for which we esteem or admire any 
one. What sort of qualities we respect or honor in this 
way will depend upon who we are. A group of scholars 
honor a man like Newton or Darwin or Pasteur who 
shows genius in discovering truth. A group of hunters 
honor the best shot. A group of foot-ball players honor 
the quickest, coolest, steadiest, and boldest player. A 
group of thieves honor the cleverest thief. A group of 
fighters honor the best fighters. Honor then means 
excellence in some quality which is admired by some 
group. The important group at the stage we are now 
considering was the warrior group — the group of 
gentry, of knights and ladies. The honor that counted 
in this group was the honor of a warrior, of a knight, 
a gentleman, or lady, for the lady though not herself a 
warrior belonged to the group of warriors and like them 
looked down upon men and women of lower classes. 
To understand " honor " we need to know what a group 
of warriors, knights, and gentlemen would prize most. 

First, of course, would come courage. The good Courage 
warrior must fear no foe and shrink from no danger. 
He would not take a " dare." But, it may be asked, 
why speak of courage as though it were a new thing. 
Surely it was not invented by warriors. The cavemen 
who hunted the mammoth and tiger with nothing but 
stone weapons had courage. The Eskimos who went out 
upon arctic seas in their canoes to catch seals had cour- 
age. Yes, they certainly had. But they did not make this 



68 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Defects in 
the 

warrior's 
courage 



the one great thing in life. They did not have such a 
strong group feeling as warriors had, against any act 
of cowardice or fear. A few men are naturally reck- 
less of any danger. They like risks. But most of us 
are braver when in company. And when men are trained 
especially to fight, it becomes second nature to stand 
up to the enemy, for the very reason that it is hard for 
any one to break away from his group. By thinking 
and talking about brave deeds, by praising the heroes 
and condemning the timid, courage is built up. 

We must place it to the credit of the warrior that he 
trained men to be brave and led a great group of men 
to praise courage and heroism. 

But there were two flaws in the warrior's kind of 
courage. These were due to the fact that it was the 
courage of a class. The first was that the warrior's 
courage was shown in going with his group. It usually 
is far easier to go with our class, our party, our army, 
than to stand up alone for a cause which is not popular. 
Yet this kind of courage is often most needed. For, 
while it is more likely that I am wrong than that a large 
class or group is wrong, it is to be remembered that 
practically every reform, every protest against oppres- 
sion, every struggle for liberty and justice, has begun 
with one, or with a few who were standing up against 
the general practice or against the majority of their 
class. Further, the fact that the warrior always was 
obeying orders prevented him from thinking for himself: 

" Theirs not to reason why, 
Theirs not to make reply, 
Theirs but to do and die." 



The world needs a good many kinds of men. Some- 
times it needs just the soldier's courage. But at other 



IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS 69 

times ft needs men who do " reason why " and, if need 
be, will have courage to i 6 make reply " to wrong com- 
mands. Our ancestors, in protesting against the king 
both in England and in America, showed this kind of 
courage, and it is interesting to note that those who 
protested were usually not soldiers by profession. 

Another defect due to the warrior's class ideal of 
courage was that it allowed him to be cruel to those of 
other groups. He often treated them as though they 
had no rights ; and he liked to show his power by tor- 
turing as well as killing the conquered. The ancient 
Assyrians did not feel ashamed, in fact they were proud 
to tell, of their cruelty to the conquered: 

" To the city of Kinabu," says Assur-nasir-pal (883-885 
B.C.), " I approached ... I captured it. Six hundred 
of their righting men I slew with the sword, 3000 of their 
captives I burned with fire. . . . The people of the country 
of Nirbu encouraged one another . . . the city of Tela 
was very strong. . . . 3000 of their fighting men I slew 
with the sword; their spoil, their goods, their oxen and 
their sheep I carried away; their numerous captives I 
burned with fire. I captured many of the soldiers alive 
with the hand. I cut off the hands and feet of some; I 
cut off the noses, the ears and the fingers of others; the 
eyes of numerous soldiers I put out."* 

The Hebrew, the Greek, the Roman in the ancient 
world would kill the males and make slaves of the women 
and children. The English warriors who conquered 
Britain had no mercy. They killed priests as well as 
warriors. They were called " seawolves that live on 
the pillage of the world." The Northmen were among 
the bravest of warriors, but they were pirates and rob- 

* Sayce, Records of the Past, ii, pp. 145, 159, etc. Quoted 
in Hobhouse, Morals in Evolution, p. 249. 



70 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

bers as well who raided the coasts and killed or enslaved 
peaceful dwellers whom they surprised. Our ancestors 
learned courage in the school of war, but they learned 
fierceness and cruelty also. 
Loyalty Next to courage, Loyalty. To be loyal is to be true 

to some superior. Or we sometimes speak of being loyal 
to a party, or to our country, or to a cause. The early 
men of the clans were loyal to their kinsmen. But, as 
with courage, so with loyalty; the band of warriors 
staked everything on this. The great business was fight- 
ing, and to fight successfully it was absolutely necessary 
to obey the leader and to follow him to death, if need 
be. The whole body of fighting men — the upper class, 
as contrasted with the serfs or workers — were trained 
from early years to be loyal to some superior. The 
plain soldier was a " vassal " of some " lord." There 
was a solemn public ceremony in which the vassal did 
homage, as it was called ; that is, acknowledged that he 
was the " man " (homage, i.e., from the Latin word 
meaning " man ") of the one whom he called his lord. 
He also swore a solemn oath of fealty, that is fidelity. 
The lord undertook to protect the vassal. It was on this 
basis that the land was largely held. The lord would 
let a piece of land to a tenant on condition that the 
tenant should do homage and swear fealty, that is, be 
his loyal vassal. 

" The tenant stands up with his hands on the gospels 
and says : ' Hear this, my lord : I will be faithful to you 
of life and member, goods, chattels, and earthly worship, 
so help me God and these holy gospels of God/ ' ; 

Loyalty to a lord was often stronger than the tie 
of blood or kindred. An old story in the English Chron- 
icle illustrates this. Cyjiewulf? king of the West 



IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS 71 

Saxons, when with a small company, was beset by a 
band of his enemies under Cyneheard and wounded to 
death. His thanes refused any reparation or quarter, 
but fought over his body till all were slain but one. 
The next day a large force gathered to avenge the dead 
king, and rode to where Cyneheard was. Cyneheard 
offered them great inducements to have him as king, 
and told them that kinsmen of theirs were with him 
that would never leave him. " But they declared that 
none of their kinsmen could be dearer to them than 
their lord, and that they would never follow their 
lord's slayer. And they offered their kinsmen to let 
them go safe. But the men with Cyneheard said that 
they would not do otherwise than those that had fallen 
with the king. So they fought about the gate till the 
avengers broke in and slew Cyneheard and all with him 
save one who was Osric's godson and he had many 
swords." 

Loyalty, as a warrior ideal, like courage, had its Defects in 
flaws. For it was the loyalty of a class, and loyalty loyalty 
to a person, not to a cause. It did not aim to unite 
men under a cause that all could follow. To be loyal 
to the lord meant sometimes to help the lord oppress 
his villeins. To be loyal to the king meant to fight 
against other men just because the king had a quarrel. 
Gradually men changed the object of devotion from 
the king or the lord to the country, or to some cause 
like liberty or justice or truth. When we can be loyal 
to some one who leads us in the right direction, so as 
to secure good things that we could not secure without 
following a leader and working under him, then it is a 
splendid quality. But we need first to make sure of 
our cause. The colonists who remained faithful to 
King George III at the time of the American Revolu- 



72 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

tion were called loyalists. Most of us now think that 
the king in this case was opposing liberty and that 
those who were disloyal to him were in the right. 
Chivalry Chivalry combined the courage of the warrior and 

an<i the loyalty of the vassal with something finer and 

n1 ^ " broader. The knight was brought up to be faithful 
to his superior ; he was also to be a brave warrior. But 
he was not loyal just to his superior, nor did he fight 
with the single idea of conquering, no matter how. 
The true knight must protect the weak. He must be 
especially courteous to ladies and help them in distress. 
If a woman were ill treated it was the part of the knight 
to right her wrongs. Walter Scott represented the 
knight Ivanhoe as undertaking the cause of the Jewess 
Rebecca who had been accused of witchcraft. When 
a knight fought he must fight fair. He must be gen- 
erous to his defeated foe, not kill him after he had 
yielded. To make a slave of his prisoners or of ladies 
whom he might capture would be contrary to his ideals. 
The knight indeed took vows, much as the priest took 
vows. When he was made a knight he handed over his 
sword to a priest who blessed it and gave it back. 
Chaucer describes a knight who " loved chivalrie, 
truthe and honour, freedom and curtoisie." He was 
a valiant fighter and yet he did not boast or abuse. 

" He nevere yet no vileyne ne sayd : 
In all his lyf, unto no manner wight/' 

Chevalier Bayard was a French type of the perfect 
knight, a gallant fighter for country, a passionate ad- 
mirer of justice, " sans peur et sans reproche," — with- 
out fear and without reproach. Later changes in the 
social order made the outer forms of chivalry as empty 
and meaningless as Don Quixote's charging the wind- 
mill. 



n 



IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS 73 

While the institution of knighthood passed away 
except as a form, generosity to the unfortunate, an 
ideal which knighthood had taught, survived as a fine 
tradition. Sir Philip Sidney, dying on the field of 
Zutphen in 1586, declined the offered drink of water, 
and passed the flask to a soldier lying mortally 
wounded beside him, saying " Thy necessity is greater 
than mine." In the battle of Santiago, when a Spanish 
battleship was burning and sinking, the American 
sailors began to cheer in victory, but Captain Philip 
saw Spanish sailors wounded, struggling in the waters, 
and called to his men, " Don't cheer, boys, the poor 
fellows are dying." This was the finest chivalry. 

Finally we notice the ideal of the gentleman. Today The 
no one likes to be told, " you are no gentleman." Yet gentleman 
it is not long since only a few were regarded as gen- 
tlemen. It is one of the words that at first applied 
to a select class. Then it came to stand for the quali- 
ties which that class had or ought to have. Finally 
when men became more democratic, they began to think 
that any one might be a gentleman if he had the right 
qualities. In this respect it is something like the word 
" kind " which we saw at first was applied only to 
the way in which a man treated his own kin. Then 
it came to be thought right to be kind to all. The 
word gentleman was at first an exclusive word, a word 
meaning " upper class," and especially " military upper 
class." The word " lady " corresponded to the word 
* ' gentleman," but in recent times it has not succeeded 
as well in taking on new meaning. It is largely a 
polite term. 

The word gentleman is from the Latin word " gens," 
which means " family " or " stock." In Rome the 



74 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Meaning 
of the 
word 



Two 
classes 
of men 



prominent men all belonged to certain great families 
or clans which had been the nucleus of the city. Julius 
Caesar belonged to the Julian gens. Those who did not 
belong to any of these families were plebeians, and were 
regarded as inferior. The " first families," or gentes, 
doubtless owed their position in the first place to the 
fact that they were the best fighters. In the Middle 
Ages there was, as we have seen, a great division into 
two classes : the warriors and their families were in one 
class and were called " noble," or nobiles in Latin ; 
the villeins, citizens of towns, traders, craftsmen, and 
laborers were in the other class and were called " ig- 
noble," or ignobiles. A warrior in battle wore a special 
sign upon his armor to show who he was, and it later 
came to be regarded as necessary for a gentleman to 
have a coat of arms. Certain men who did not orig- 
inally belong to the class of gentry might enter it. In 
Shakespeare's time a student of law, or liberal sciences, 
a captain in war, or good adviser of the state who could 
afford to live without manual labor and keep up a good 
appearance might have a coat of arms granted him, 
" be called master, which is the title that men give to 
esquires and gentlemen, and be reputed for a gentleman 
ever after." Shakespeare became a gentleman instead 
of a " vagabond " in this way. A little later Daniel 
Defoe, who wrote Robinson Crusoe, tells us that 
although a tradesman could not be a gentleman, he 
might buy land and then his sons could be gentlemen. 
The title of " master " referred to above has now come 
to be pronounced " mister " and used to address almost 
any man. But among the early settlers in this country 
it was not so generally applied. The writer's great- 
grandfather at the time of the Revolution signed his 
name, " William Tufts, gentleman," while his brother 



IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS 75 

signed his, " John Tufts, yeoman." As both brothers 
were farmers, it seems likely that William signed him- 
self " gentleman " because he was an officer in the army. 

It was natural that the gentry should expect a certain The 
standard of their class. Every group tends to do this, standard 
and we have seen how chivalry or knighthood set up ° the 
a very definite ideal for all its members. The gentle- 
man was expected to act like a member of his class. 
He was expected, as becomes a military class, to be 
brave. His word of honor always had to be taken as 
true. If his word was doubted, he was expected to fight 
to prove that he was right. He was expected to be 
ready to fight a duel if any one of his own class chal- 
lenged him, because this was the way to maintain his 
" honor," that is, his reputation as belonging to the 
upper class of fighters. He dared not do manual labor, 
for this was the sign of the lower class of villeins or 
slaves who were not fighters. To 1 6 spend money like 
a gentleman " implied that you did not think of money 
or care for it — as perhaps a merchant or a poor man 
would care for it. A gentleman was expected to pay 
gambling debts to those of his own class, for these 
were debts of honor, but he did not need to be so par- 
ticular about paying his landlady, or his washerwoman, 
or his tailor, for these belonged to a lower class. He 
must treat a " lady " with respect and politeness, for 
she was of his class. He might deceive a girl of lower 
rank or treat her outrageously without feeling that he 
had done anything unworthy of a gentleman. 

A lady of course was not expected to be brave ; The 
indeed it was unladylike to be strong minded or inde- !ady 
pendent. She was expected to be scrupulously dig- 
nified, careful in her manners, not too free with men; 
and like the gentleman, she dared not do servile labor, 



76 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



though certain kinds of fine needlework and housework 
were not disgraceful. 

" Gentleman " and " lady " have then their good and 
their bad elements, which are due to their origin as 
class words. Part of the good and bad points go 
with belonging to any kind of group or class ; part of 
them are due to the particular kind of class which was 
made up of gentlemen and ladies. 



Group 
standards 



Noblesse 
oblige 



To belong to any group means that we must conform 
to what the group stands for. If we belong to a club 
we must keep the rules. If we belong to a church we 
know that this ought to make a difference in our con- 
duct. A member of a school cannot behave exactly 
as though he were not a member of it. As members of 
any group we cannot do just exactly as we may fancy, 
or just as our first impulse may prompt us; we must 
stop and think. We saw how the clan had customs for 
its members which they had to follow. And we saw that 
they were chiefly customs that prescribed how to behave 
toward other members of the clan; we saw that the im- 
portant custom for dealing with outsiders was blood 
revenge. In the case of such a group as the gentry 
which lived among other people they would be more 
constantly reminded of their own standards by contrast 
with the common people. They felt so proud to belong 
to the gentry class that its rules had a very strong 
hold upon them. The French had a phrase for this, 
noblesse oblige, to belong to the nobility has its obliga- 
tions. The rules of this class became what we call a 
code, that is, a system of rules or standards that all 
in the class should obey. 

Besides this feeling of obligation is the feeling that 
in your group all are equal or nearly so. You are but 



IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS 77 

one; you must consider the rest. One of the marks 
of what we now call a true gentleman is his considera- 
tion of others. It is a mark of good manners neither Gentlemen 
to cringe or be embarrassed before others, nor to put are 
on airs of superiority. We can show respect to age e( * ua 
or learning or genuine ability of any sort without losing 
our self-respect. This trait of the gentleman was at 
first shown only toward his own class ; with the growth 
of democracy we have learned that it need not be so 
limited. We believe him to be the finest type of gen- 
tleman who treats all men with respect for their good 
qualities, and (perhaps this is the finest touch of all) 
treats men as though he assumed them to be worthy 
of respect even when they forget themselves and do 
not treat themselves with respect. A true gentleman 
will not treat a woman with disrespect. 

More particularly, membership in an upper class Dignity 
based not on wealth but on military or political power 
has given rise to three traits. The first is a cer- 
tain dignity and sense of balance or fitness. A gentle- 
man would not make his clothes showy, for this would 
look as though the clothes were more important than 
the man who wears them. He would not make his house 
or its furnishings impressive by their costliness so much 
as by their fitness, for he does not value money as 
highly as skill. He would not boast, or speak loudly, 
for such conduct seems to indicate that he is not sure 
of himself, or is not sure that others will appreciate 
him unless he calls attention to himself. He would not 
break his word, for this would seem to show either that 
he did not know what he was doing when he gave it or 
else was too weak or fearful to carry out what he 
promised. 

The second trait was not so fine. As a member of 



78 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Contempt 

for 

labor 



a superior fighting class he scorned to submit to those 
laws which he considered were meant for common 
Dueling people. He insisted on fighting duels if he conceived 
that his honor had been insulted, and this is still re- 
, yarded in some countries of Europe as the only course 
• ,.*open for a gentleman. In the early years of this country 
^* dueling was not uncommon, but when Alexander Hamil- 
ton, who had been one of our most prominent states- 
men, was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr, there was 
a great outburst of condemnation for the practice. 

A third trait already mentioned was that the gen- 
tleman despised manual labor because this was done 
by peasants ; he also despised trade because shop 
keeping or bargaining was a lower class occupation. 
This contempt naturally called out angry feeling in 
the despised classes. An early rhyme runs: 

" When Adam delved and Eve span, 
Who was then the gentleman ? " 

Gentleman But it was the life of the emigrants and pioneers 
and in America that did most to break down the idea in 

pioneer this country that the gentleman must do no work with 
his hands. Few indeed of the colonists were of the 
gentry, though there were more in Virginia and South 
Carolina than in the other colonies. But life in the 
new country — clearing forests, building houses, plow- 
ing and harvesting — was not fitted to keep up a sep- 
arate class. All worked with axe and hoe and scythe, 
and then all met in town meeting — at least in some of 
the colonies — to govern. The real business of living 
had then little place for the man who despised work. 
The gentleman had to prove his title in other ways. 

This description of the ideals and traits of the war- 
riors, knight and gentleman, has been drawn chiefly 



IDEALS OF THE WARRIOR CLASS 79 

from Western Europe, for that is where most of our 
ancestors lived, and it was from England that our 
early settlers in America brought not only their lan- 
guage but their laws and ideals. Yet it is of interest 
to note that Greece and Japan have had very similar 
classes with similar ideals. The Japanese in fact have 
a word, Bushido, which, like chivalry, means the code 
or standard of those who ride on horses. It emphasized 
loyalty above everything else. Indeed, a Japanese 
knight regarded it as a fine example of devotion to put 
himself to death when his lord died. 

Courage, loyalty, protection for the weak, chivalry 
toward women, courtesy, a sense of honor, considera- 
tion for others — these are the ideals which we owe 
largely to the Middle Ages, ideals which we ought not 
to forget, any more than we should forget its won- 
derful cathedrals, or its beginnings of law and justice. 
On the other hand, class pride, exclusiveness, contempt 
for labor, and for those not in our set, have no place 
in a democracy. 

A final word on the influence of class is suggested by 
some of our words of reproach. One of the worst 
things to say of a man is to call him a " villain," which 
originally meant the unfree tenant on the manor. We 
now spell the word in one meaning " villain," and in 
the other " villein," but there used to be no difference. 
A " knave " meant just a servant, a " blackguard " 
meant one who guarded kettles, a " rascal " one of 
the common herd, and " vulgar " what was character- 
istic of common people. No doubt the common people 
were in many respects inferior to the gentry. In some 
cases they may have been naturally slower and less 
alert. Their hard work and meager opportunities 
would keep them down. But to lump them all as a 



80 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Gentleman 

and 

labor 



class and think of a man as a " villain " or a " wretch " 
just, because the gentleman or his ancestor had con- 
quered him and shoved him down shows the bad effects 
of class pride. 

It is class which more than anything else makes the 
difference in our standards about work and wealth. 
No one feels it a disgrace to work if all work. No 
one feels it a disgrace to be poor if all are poor. This 
has been the case over and over in American life in 
frontier communities. But when one class feels that 
the only worthy business is to fight, govern, and hunt, 
then labor becomes a mark of an inferior class. When 
one is rich and on that account has the right to the 
service of the other, then the upper class feels proud 
and the lower feels oppressed. At first the difference 
may be accepted as the outcome of a war in which the 
weaker has been beaten. But after several generations, 
it seems to be purely the accident of birth, and then, 
if possible, it becomes worse than at first. At least it 
seems more difficult to justify, for the warrior at least 
had to have some energy and take some risks. The 
man who belongs to a class merely because he inherits 
money or a title does not necessarily have either brains 
or courage. The spirit of democracy is opposed to this 
kind of class distinction. 



CHAPTER VIII 

THE NEW COOPERATION: TOWN LIFE, TRADE, 
CRAFTS 

A FTER agriculture, the next great step in the 

/-% way of getting a living was by trade and handi- 

crafts. Trade and handicrafts flourish best in 

towns and cities. Here then are three new things 

which go together: trade, handicraft, town life. 

These three things made two great social changes. 
Before the rise of towns, and of trade, and of handi- 
craft, there were chiefly two great classes: warriors 
and farm laborers, or gentry and peasants. The mer- 
chants and craftsmen — tailors, weavers, smiths, car- 
penters — belonged to neither of the two old classes. 
They made a new middle class. This was a step toward 
democracy. And another social change was that living 
together in towns meant a new kind of union or society. 

One way of looking at these changes is to think of The new 
them as coming from a new kind of cooperation — co- coopera- 
operation by exchanging goods. The clan would not n 
have a variety of products to exchange, as would mer- 
chants coming from different places. Exchange of 
goods means that some merchants and craftsmen travel 
or send their products from town to town, or country 
to country; at the same time it means that some set 
up their shops and live together in towns. Coopera- 
tion by exchange of goods, and the living together in 
towns and cities which goes with the cooperation, bring 
about exchange of ideas as well as of goods. They 

81 



82 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

waken new wants and kindle ambitions, for people like 
to have what they see others have; they call out skill 
in various arts to supply the new desires; they create 
a new power of wealth and a new social class ; they 
give rise to demands for liberty, and afford the means 
for backing up the demands. Finally cooperation by 
exchange leads men to think of what is honest and fair, 
for in exchange men do not, as in war, simply seize and 
rob ; they expect to give in return. 

The early clan gave a kind of cooperation, but we 
saw that it tied men together too tightly, in some 
respects, and made too small a group. The king and 
his warriors had shown the power of cooperation for 
fighting. The great bands of English and Danes had 
been too strong for the Britons scattered about as 
they were. William the Conqueror had been too strong 
for the English because he had his Normans better 
organized, and after he had won the first battle the 
English could not get together a large enough force to 
oppose him. How could one lord keep a great number 
of peasants and serfs in subjection? Simply because 
he had a few trained warriors and could at short notice 
get the help of other lords or the king, whereas the 
peasants in one little village had no way of planning 
with peasants in another village so as to get together 
a large force. The towns showed what those who were 
not mainly soldiers could do by planning and acting 
together. Of course the towns-people sometimes had 
fighting to do, but this was not their main business. 
In the long run their wealth proved a better defense 
than their walls. 

The king and his warriors had helped to prepare 
the way for these benefits. For the king and his war- 
riors made a state. The state with its officers and 



TOWN LIFE, TRADE, AND CRAFTS 83 

courts brought order and safety, and broke down the 
barriers between clans and neighborhood communities. 
This paved the way for trade and various kinds of 
handicrafts. Moreover, the king usually favored the 
towns directly, for we have seen that it was to the 
advantage of the state to have trade and towns flourish. 

But, on the other hand, the king did not like to have 
the towns become too strong. He wanted them to 
remain in subjection to him. And what was true of 
the king was likely to be still more true of the baron 
or bishop, who might be the immediate lord over the 
town. There were frequent contests between towns and 
lords, in which the towns struggled to secure greater 
liberties. It was a struggle of the new societies built 
up by trade and wealth against the old unions built 
up by fighters. 

We begin to see, then, that town life was a great 
advance, not only in getting a living, but in affording 
the opportunity for living well, inasmuch as it taught 
men how to unite for peace and for liberty, and stimu- 
lated them to greater skill in art. 

What was the chief factor in the founding and Towns 
growth of towns? Did trade start the town or did 
people get together for some other reason and the 
trade spring up because the people were there? It 
seems probable that different towns began in different 
ways. A few like Chester, or Manchester, or Leicester, 
seem to have begun as Roman " camps " (castra). 
Some apparently grew up about markets, or fairs. 
Some were fishing towns, like Sandwich or Norwich. 
But practically all combined two features — defense and Defense 
trade. They were commonly called boroughs or burgs 
(Peterborough, Edinburg, Canterbury), and a "burg" 
means originally a fortified place. A few cities, such 



84 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

as Chester in England and Nuremburg in Germany, 
still have the old walls that were built for defense. 
The walls might be strengthened by towers and a moat 
outside. Most of the dwellers at first cultivated their 
strip of land outside of the walls, just as peasants. 
And the towns, like the villages, were subject to some 
lord. If the lord lived within the town his castle was 
likely to be on a rock or hill if there was one, as in 
Edinburg. The dwellers in the burg — or burghers, 
as they were called — had of course to defend the walls 
if attacked, and some who did not live within the walls 
had the right to come in when there was danger. Hence 
burghers had to keep arms and learn how to use them. 
Trade But besides the wall which served for the military 

aid of the town there was usually the market place — 
a large open space where wares of all kinds could be 
taken for exchange or sale. These wares would be 
partly farm products, such as butter, eggs, cheese, 
poultry, partly articles made by craftsmen, as linen or 
bread. But in time it was natural that craftsmen 
should more and more settle in the towns. For one 
thing, it was the custom to give the craftsmen of a 
town the exclusive right to sell in that town. A weaver 
or saddler from another town would not be allowed to 
sell if there was a man of that trade living in the place. 
The trade was largely direct, from producer to con- 
sumer. That is, the farmer did not usually sell to a 
grocer or butcher and he in turn to customers. The 
farmer brought his butter or poultry to the market 
place and the housewife went there to buy. It was 
even at times forbidden by law to buy provisions before 
they came into the market, or to buy and sell them 
again at a profit. It was thought that such practices 
would make them dearer. But there were of course 



TOWN LIFE, TRADE, AND CRAFTS 85 

some articles not produced in the region. Foreign 
merchants would bring many goods. The more common 
kinds would be (1) spices and southern fruits, (2) 
dried and salted fish, (3) furs, (4) fine cloths, 
(5) wines. The rich people would buy a year's supply 
at a time. The poor could not afford this, and a retail 
trade to accommodate them with small amounts existed 
before there was wholesale trade — grocers, peddlers, 
and cloth dealers were among the earliest of retail 
traders. Traders, then, were the first important group 
in the towns. 

The second important group in the towns were the Crafts 
craftsmen. There were of course, on the larger manors, 
carpenters, smiths, and other men who could make shoes 
and perform the various tasks needed wherever there 
is a considerable number of people; but in the towns 
the craftsmen had the chance to develop greater skill 
and form an important group by themselves. They 
developed a plan of work which is called the i 6 method 
of handicraft," which largely took the place of the 
older method of domestic work and to some extent 
also of wage work. In domestic work the farmers 
or housewives made tools, wagons, shoes, and cloths 
in their own houses. There was no " capital," no 
" wages," no " laborer," no " exchange." In wage work, 
the ordinary plan was for the craftsman, carpenter, 
shoemaker, tailor, to go to the house of the customer 
who provided the raw material and hired the worker by 
the day. In this stage no risk was taken by any one 
and no corresponding profit gained by buying and sell- 
ing. The raw material was owned by the same man all 
the time until it was ready for his use. In the method 
of handicraft the craftsman, instead of going to the 
customer's house and using the customer's lumber or 



86 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

cloth or leather, had his own shop, bought his own ma- 
terials, and either made articles to order or carried 
them to market for sale. Custom tailors, small bake 
shops, and milliners follow this plan today. By it the 
workman gets both a return for his labor and also a 
return for his skill in buying material and using it in 
the best way. He gets both a wage and a profit. This 
kind of work flourished until the great discoveries of 
steam power and machinery. 

Evidently this method of handicraft tended to make 
a new class of fairly independent people. By the house- 
work plan, only the landowner was independent. He 
produced the raw material, and kept control of it until 
he used it, getting it worked up by slaves, or by serfs, 
or by hired workmen. With the handicraft plan a new 
independent class was formed, namely, those who buy 
the raw material, work it up, and sell to customers or 
at markets. This became a third great factor in build- 
ing up town life and free citizens. 
Gilds Besides the union of the towns-people in a " bor- 

ough," the merchants and craftsmen of most towns 
united in societies called " gilds." Much about the 
origin of these gilds is obscure. In early times in 
England, before the Norman Conquest, there had been 
brotherhoods called gilds which had various purposes, 
such as helping to pay the wergeld or blood money 
that would be assessed upon a man for killing some one, 
or helping to pay for losses, or to bury the dead, or to 
aid in distress of any kind. They had gild halls for 
meetings, held periodical banquets, and provided for 
prayers to be offered for dead members. 

Later, when traders and craftsmen began to increase 
in towns, it was natural that they, too, should form 
such brotherhoods. The earliest of these traders' and 



TOWN LIFE, TRADE, AND CRAFTS 87 

craftsmen's gilds was called the gild merchant. It in- 
cluded both merchants and craftsmen. It was granted 
a charter from the king which gave it a virtual monop- 
oly of the trade of the town. The members of the 
gild could buy and sell freely, whereas other traders 
had to pay for the privilege of buying and selling, 
and even then were under close restrictions. 

" Being asked what liberties they claim to have per- 
taining to the aforesaid Gild (of Newcastle) they say that 
no one unless he should be of the liberty of the Gild can 
cut cloth to sell in the town, nor cut up meat and fish, nor 
buy fresh leather, nor purchase wool by the fleece, except 
by great weight (wholesale)." So too at Chester the 
member of the Gild " can buy within the liberty of the said 
city, all kinds of wares coming to that city by sea or land, 
without paying any fine thereon; and that no one who is 
not admitted into the said Gild can buy anything within 
the liberty of the said city without the license and assent 
of the said stewards." 

On the other hand, gild members had to pay assess- 
ments, " to be in scot and lot " as it was termed, and 
they had a fine system of mutual help. Among the 
Tules of a gild at Lynn were the following: 

If any of the brethren shall fall into poverty, or misery, 
all the brethren are to assist him by common consent out 
of the chattels of the house, or fraternity, or of their proper 
own. 

If any brother should be impleaded, either within Lenne 
or without, the brethren there present ought to assist him 
in their council, if they are called, to stand with him and 
counsel him without any costs ; and if they do not, they are 
to forfeit 32 pence. 

If any one should sleep at the gild, either at the general 
meeting or at their feasts and drinking, he is to forfeit 
4 pence. 

If any one turns him rudely to his brother, or calls him 
by any rude name, (he is) to be amerced 4 pence. 



88 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

If any poor brother shall dye, the alderman and 
brethren shall see that his body be honourably buried, of 
the goods, or chattels of the house, or out of alms, if he 
has not wherewith to bury himself.* 

It will be noticed that the gild, like the old clan, 
or the state, was good to those within, but quite indif- 
ferent or hostile to those without. But at least it 
made a new kind of a " we-group." And it secured 
many privileges for its members which for a time, at 
least, helped the members, although it was often so 
selfish as to be shortsighted. 

Later, besides the gild merchant, which included both 
merchants and craftsmen, separate gilds or " com- 
panies " were formed by those belonging to special 
crafts. Thus at Andover sixty-one particular trades 
are enumerated. In some countries of Europe these 
craft gilds had violent struggles with the rich rulers of 
the towns. And still later there were, in Germany es- 
pecially, divisions in the craft gilds between the " mas- 
ters," or employing members, and journeymen, or 
workers. All classes were thus finding out the power 
of union. They were in training for democracy. 
* Groos, The Gild Merchant, vol. II, pp. 161-162. 



CHAPTER IX 

EFFECTS OF THE NEW COOPERATION: 
WEALTH, SKILL, A MIDDLE CLASS, A NEW 
IDEAL 

OUT of town life with its trade, its crafts, its 
middle class, and its new powers of united 
action came three kinds of gains: wealth and 
comfort; knowledge and skill; liberty, and ideals of 
honesty and of the dignity of labor. 

It is easy for us to see why trade and exchange of Increase 
wares produces wealth, and usually means a gain for of 
all concerned. For it makes it possible for men to do wealth 
different kinds of work, according to their various 
abilities. In this way, if each man does what he can do 
best, there ought to be more grain grown, better houses 
built, better clothes made. It also gives a chance for 
people in one place to get the advantage of metals, 
clothes, foods, and all sorts of articles produced in 
other places, and thus to exchange what they have a 
surplus of for what they lack. 

Exchanges were at first made largely at fairs and 
markets. The towns were a sort of continuous market 
where buyers and sellers could always find each other. 
Wealth tended to accumulate in towns not only because 
merchants often made large profits on trade with dis- 
tant countries, but also because in towns were made the 
fine cloth, the jewels, the other luxuries, which the rich 
lords and their ladies sought. The lords exacted rent 
and labor and dues of various sorts from their villeins. 

89 



90 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

They had all the necessaries of life produced or made 
on their own estates. Their surplus of cattle or wheat 
or salt they could exchange for fine clothing and orna- 
ments. The substantial houses, and especially the beau- 
tiful gild houses of many of the towns, showed that in 
this exchange the burghers got their share of gain. In- 
crease of wealth, like increase of power through military 
cooperation, may be misused, but it is none the less a 
' great gain for more men to have the power to live 
comfortably and independently. 

Increase Men in towns had a better chance to become skilful. 

in skill J n a village or on a manor there would be one smith 
or carpenter, and perhaps several who could do weaving 
or shoe-making, but there would not be the chance for 
one man to get ideas from others that there would be 
in a town where there could be several men plying 
each kind of trade. And in a village it would be seldom 
the case that a man could work at one trade steadily; 
there would not be demand enough to keep him busy. 
So he would not have a chance to become so expert as 
the town mechanic who would be in demand all the time. 
The town then favored division of labor and tended to 
make expert craftsmen. 

The increase of wealth in towns and of skill among 
craftsmen together made possible beautiful buildings, 
paintings, and sculpture. The motives for building 
great or fine buildings or making various beautiful and 
useful articles might have nothing to do with trade or 
town life, but the skilled workmen were almost sure to 
be found in the towns and the wealth with which to 
employ them was likely to be there also. Thus it was 
religion which prompted Solomon to build his temple, 
but he had to send to Tyre for skilled masons and 
carpenters. So the beautiful cathedrals which were 



A MIDDLE CLASS, A NEW IDEAL 91 

built during the Middle Ages were built for religion, 
but they were built in towns of some importance. 
The very numbers of people made a difference in the 
size and grandeur of the building. So the beautiful 
temples and statues of the Greeks were largely for their 
cities. 

Growth of towns and growth of trade favored knowl- Increase 
edge directly. Any one who lives entirely by himself in 
is usually satisfied to remain at about the same stage knowled g e 
of knowledge. So any small group or even a whole 
people, if cut off from intercourse with other people, is 
apt to settle down in its own ways of thinking and 
living, and regard these as best. We fall into a rut, 
as the phrase goes, unless we in some way meet other 
people, or learn about their ideas and ways of living. 
Nowadays, books, magazines, and newspapers keep us 
informed of what goes on elsewhere. But before print- 
ing was known people were generally dependent upon 
traders, soldiers from foreign wars, or wayfarers to 
carry news. And of these, traders were probably the 
most important. More than the others, they helped to 
give people new wants, and so to raise their standards 
of living. As compared with soldiers, they tended to 
break down the old suspicions which in the tribal life 
always made a wall between people. And town life, 
where people from different places meet, tends also to 
break down old traditions which are a sort of weight 
on progress. If today you want to find traces of old 
customs and beliefs you look in country places. 

It is interesting, too, to see how some of our branches 
of science grew out of the needs of trade. Geography 
was of course necessary. Arithmetic was closely 
connected with trade and industry. Some of the 
" measures " in arithmetic — furlongs, acres, roods, 



92 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Defects 

in 

knowledge 



rods — grew up with farming, but various kinds of 
weights — Avoirdupois and Troy — and liquid meas- 
ures, the processes of measuring lumber and computing 
percentage and interest, were due to the needs of 
buyers and sellers, borrowers and lenders. Indeed, 
arithmetic was in early days in this country regarded 
as so " commercial " a subject that it was not taught 
in the " grammar schools " which fitted boys for col- 
lege. Further, it was necessary for the trader in ships 
to study the sky; and although astronomy began ear- 
lier, it was among such a trading people as the Greeks 
that it made its greatest advance in early times. It is 
interesting, too, that our alphabet came from the great 
traders, the Phoenicians, and it was from them that 
the Greeks learned it and passed it on to Rome and 
through Rome to us. 

It was indeed in the trading cities of Greece that 
science had its greatest growth in the Old World, and 
while we cannot say that trade deserved the credit for 
the wonderful genius of such men as Euclid, the 
geometer, or Democritus, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, 
the philosophers, or Thales, who foretold an eclipse, 
yet the general exchange of thought and knowledge 
which trade favored had much to do with giving oppor- 
tunity for science to develop. 

It is in some respects surprising that there was so 
much ignorance in some matters in the mediaeval towns 
where there was such knowledge, taste, and skill in other 
matters. The cathedrals, the castles, the furnishings 
and carvings, the glass of early times were wonderful. 
On the other hand, men believed in magic and astrology. 
In medicine their remedies were often more dangerous 
than the disease; and they had almost no knowledge 
of chemistry which is so important today. One great 



A MIDDLE CLASS, A NEW IDEAL 93 

discovery was indeed made which helped to upset the 
whole scheme of castles, walls, and armor. This was 
gunpowder. It helped to put the common man on a 
level in war with the armed knight, and so to break 
down the power of the fighting class. 

Town life, trade, and handicraft made a great change Rise 
in social classes. The earlier division had been into ° f tLe 
Fighters and Workers, or into Free and Unfree, or ^ lddle 
into Gentry and Peasant. This growth of towns with 
their traders and craftsmen made a new class who 
were neither gentry nor peasants. They were free, but 
their strength was not in their land as with some of the 
free yeomen; it was in the wealth they gained through 
trade or skill, and in their union in town or gild. The 
wealth of the gentry was in land and was largely due 
to conquest or birth. The wealth of the burghers or 
town dwellers was due chiefly to their labor or shrewd- 
ness. This gave a field for a new kind of ability to 
show itself. Before this the chief rewards had been 
for brave fighters or capable rulers. In the church 
there had also been an opportunity for scholars, and 
administrators as well as preachers. But now there 
was an opportunity for the capable merchant and 
skilled craftsman. In Italy, in Germany, in France, in 
the Netherlands, and in England this Middle Class 
arose. 

But we must not think that every one could enter 
this class. In the first place, no one from the gentry 
could enter it, for trade or any kind of manual labor 
was looked upon as a disgrace for a gentleman. Never- 
theless from our present point of view we can see why 
to be kept out of trade was really a limitation for the 
gentleman, even though he did not think of it as such. 



94 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

For many who made very poor fighters or priests might 
have made good traders or craftsmen. The great means 
of developing a man is to give him a chance to do what 
he can do best. 

But the middle class itself made the greatest restric- 
tions. As we have seen, the gilds were strict in their 
rules, and tended to become exclusive. They bought 
their privileges at a high price. They did not propose 
to give them away, especially if giving them away was 
liable to reduce their value. They did not believe in 
" open shops." Hence the system was a comfortable 
one for those who were in it, but only a limited number 
could share its benefits. 

Towns were able to secure greater liberty for their 
citizens than the peasants or villagers had enjoyed. 
This was due largely to two facts. First the town 
dwellers became used to acting together. They de- 
fended their walls, they made rules for markets and 
trading, and hence they were able to stand together 
against baron or king. In the second place, they had 
more wealth than peasants or villagers had, and so 
when they wanted a new privilege they could pay for it. 
It may seem disgraceful to us that liberty should have 
to be bought. If we wanted a just law or fair treatment 
we should think it shameful if we had to pay a legisla- 
ture or a judge to grant this to us. But the liberties 
which the towns got in return for grants of money 
were not thought of as rights, which any one might feel 
justly belonged to him. They were rather privileges, 
special privileges, which had to be secured by a bargain. 
The course of progress has frequently been that some 
class or group or place would get a privilege for itself 
alone; then others would claim the same until it be- 
came at last a right for all. This has been conspicu- 



A MIDDLE CLASS, A NEW IDEAL 95 

ously the case with education ; for universities, colleges, 
and even more elementary schools have usually been 
established at first for special classes or groups ; later 
they have been open to all. 



CHAPTER X 

NEW IDEALS AND STANDARDS: DIGNITY OF 
LABOR; HONESTY AND FAIRNESS 



WE saw that the ideals of the military state 
were those of the gentleman, and that in 
early times it was not the thing for a gen- 
tleman to engage in trade or in manual labor. Town 
life did much to set up a new standard on this point ; it 
did much to make work of any kind respected and even 
honorable. 

To appreciate the full meaning of the change in 
men's ideas about work we must recall, first, that in 
savage life a large number of the crafts were carried 
on largely by women, and that at a later stage these 
and many of the new kinds of manual labor were al- 
lotted to slaves. We must recall, secondly, that in the 
ancient world trading was often done by foreigners 
who were not admitted to citizenship but formed a 
separate class. The citizens were warriors or de- 
scendants of warriors ; merchants were neither. 

In the Middle Ages the church had many communities 
of monks who were very industrious. They tilled the 
fields and set an example of regular employment at 
manual labor. This counted a little as against the atti- 
tude of the gentry. But it may be doubted whether 
the example of the monks would ever have been very 
successful in persuading men that work was honorable 
for those outside the cloister as well as for those inside. 
It needed a new class of men who should be workers, 

96 



NEW IDEALS AND STANDARDS 97 

and who at the same time should have power enough 
to make themselves respected. The rise of the middle 
class in the towns met this need. 

If lords and gentlemen had been the sole rulers in How the 
the mediaeval towns, as they were in the towns of new 
Greece, then traders and craftsmen might have looked "J 1 e 
up to them as the only respectable people and have changed 
looked on their own trade and labor as disgraceful, this 
For people are very likely to look on even their own 
work through the spectacles of those who seem to be 
higher in the social scale. But many of the mediaeval 
towns were founded by traders, and in others the traders 
and craftsmen gained strength enough to get control 
of the government. The gilds aided the craftsmen by 
the power through cooperation which they afforded. 
And when merchants and craftsmen became wealthy 
and wrested or bought privileges from king or lord they 
began to have a new feeling of respect for themselves. 
They built beautiful and stately gild halls. They 
built for themselves private houses as splendid as the 
palaces of bishops or dukes. 

It may seem as though this explanation takes away 
something from the real value that men now put upon 
work. Is not the true reason why we respect labor to 
be found in the simple fact that it is necessary to life, 
and useful for providing what gives comfort and joy 
to others as well as to ourselves? And if we want 
another good reason, shall we not find it in the fact 
that the skilled worker is educating himself, and be- 
coming a more capable and effective man by doing 
things well? Doubtless these are the best two reasons, 
but the best reasons are not always the reasons which 
actually move men. And when we ask why anything 
is regarded as honorable, we have to answer that it is 



98 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

usually because some group or class agree in so re- 
garding it. If the view of this class is to become wide- 
spread, then the class must be a strong one. " Honor " 
is, as we have said before, a class or group way of 
thinking and feeling. The gentleman class regarded 
petty trade and manual labor as dishonorable. The 
only way to change this situation was through the rise 
of a class which should count them as honorable. 
Towns did not do the whole work of making labor 
honorable. A class of free ' ' yeomen " or farmers later 
arose in England who had the same view about their 
work. Many of them came to America, where the 
influence of frontier life added strength to their opinion 
and helped them form new community standards. But 
the towns and the gilds, with their wealth and their 
power of union and brotherhood, made the new social 
class which did most for the new ideal. 

Honesty Honesty and Fairness — Honesty and fair dealing 

were not always prized as highly as they are now. One 
reason for this was that traders and those with whom 
they traded belonged to different groups. Traders 
were outsiders. Hence it was quite in accord with 
early group morals to drive very sharp bargains with 
them. And the traders, on their side, had no scruple 
about getting the better of the bargain if they could. 
In one language the word for " trader " came to mean 
a cheater or defrauder. 

And, quite apart from the old notion that a man 
from without the group had no rights, bargaining is 
in one respect like war: it calls out strategy; it is a 
game of wits. In this respect it is like playing a game 
of ball or chess. One likes to win, even if there is not 
much at stake. Some persons thus find the same pleas- 



NEW IDEALS AND STANDARDS 99 

ure in bargaining that others find in sport. In some 
parts of the country, trading horses is regarded not so 
much as a way of making money as an agreeable 
and somewhat exciting pastime. And the neighbors 
watch the trade as they would a game of checkers. 
For both these reasons the morals of trade have been 
backward. The old maxim of Roman law was caveat 
emptor — " let the buyer beware." But when merchants 
began to enlarge their operations, to have steady cus- 
tomers, to settle down in towns, they felt the necessity 
of having standards of honest work and of fair dealing. 
The gilds punished members who cheated. Thus in the 
records of the Leicester Gild in the year 1254 we read 
that 

Roger Alditch was charged with offending the laws of 
the Gild, having made a blanket in one part of which was 
a good woof, but elsewhere in many places weak stuff. 
He also caused a piece of weak and inferior vermillion cloth 
to be attached to a good piece of the same kind of cloth. 
It was adjudged that he should pay a fine of 6s. 8d. and, 
if he should commit another offence against the Gild, he 
should be expelled.* 

Also, the gilds attempted to prevent their members 
from taking advantage of fellow members. If one gilds- 
man bought a quantity of some article like tallow or 
wine, any other gildsman could claim a portion at the 
original price. This was to keep out middlemen's 
profits, so far as fellow members were concerned. Be- 
fore the days of " one price to all " it was an important 
check. 

Although the merchants were exempted from the Customs 
common law of the land, they had a Law-Merchant of of 
their own. This had been built up out of the " cus- merchants 

* Gross, The Gild Merchant, vol. II, p. 143. 



100 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

toms " which prevailed in important ports. It dealt 
especially with such matters as contracts and debts, 
and was administered by special courts. One such 
court declared in 1477 : " it hath been at all times ac- 
coustomned, that every person coming to the said fairs 
should have lawful remedy of all manner of contracts, 
trespasses, covenants, debts, and other deeds made or 
done within any of the same fairs, during the time of 
the said fair, and within the jurisdiction of the same, 
and to be tried by the merchants being of the same 
fair." 

As the ideals and morals of the gentleman come from 
the days of the early state and of chivalry, the ideals 
and standards of business honesty come from the " cus- 
toms of merchants " and the life of towns. 



CHAPTER XI 
FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 

THUS far we have dwelt chiefly upon early co- 
operation. We turn now to the other great 
idea in our democracy, liberty, and look at its 
beginnings. It is certainly one of the great values in 
life. Men and nations have been willing to struggle 
and even to die in defense of it. America has prized 
liberty as one of its great aims and men have loved 
America because they have found liberty here. Indeed 
the early settlers, many of them, came to this country 
to find here the liberty that they could not find in the 
Old World. But the first steps toward liberty were 
taken long before our fathers came to this country. 
We have already referred to the fact that the towns 
helped their citizens to gain liberties ; but the extraor- 
dinary thing is that the state, which began by con- 
quering people and so taking away their liberty, came 
in time to be the great protector of liberty. It is 
worth while to understand how this came about, be- 
cause certain things in the Constitution of the United 
States and in our ideas about law and government 
cannot be understood save as we keep in mind the way 
in which liberty was gained. 

First of all, however, we have to notice that there Six 
are several different kinds of liberty. The word is used meanings 
in several different senses. Of these the principal are °. 
the following : * er y 

101 



102 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

1. Freedom contrasted with slavery, or serfdom. 
This is the simplest kind of liberty. 

2. National liberty, or national independence — free- 
dom from control by a foreign power. 

3. Special privilege, as when a city gained by a 
charter special rights of trade with freedom from tolls. 
To belong to a city gave one the privilege or, as it was 
called, the " freedom " of the city. 

4. Civil liberty. This means protection especially 
from violence or from any arbitrary taking of property 
even by the government itself. The principal rights 
that are included under civil liberty are freedom of 
person, freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and 
speech, and security of property. 

5. Political liberty. This is the right to have a 
share in the government by voting or otherwise. Very 
few Englishmen had this right until the year 1832, 
although civil liberty had been secured very much 
earlier. 

6. Liberty or freedom, which is in contrast with any 
kind of constraint or bondage. If a person is a slave 
to a habit, or a passion, he is not free. If he is 
ignorant or sick, he is not free. If he is in fear of 
violence, or of starvation, he has very little liberty. For 
the most part, these last kinds of bondage and freedom 
depend largely on the man himself. They cannot be 
so easily changed by law. It is only recently that we 
have begun to see that by public education and public 
care of health much can be done to give men an oppor- 
tunity to be free. 

1. Freedom The first kind of liberty does not need much explana- 
vs - tion. We all understand the difference between a slave 

slavery an( j ft £ ree man ^ what may seem curious to us is that 



FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 103 

for so long a time slavery or serfdom was the rule, 
and freedom the exception. Few of us can say that our 
ancestors were neither slaves (or serfs) nor slave mas- 
ters. Indeed, one of the greatest men of all history, 
Aristotle, argued that some men are naturally incapa- 
ble of directing themselves and so that it is better for 
them to be controlled by others, that is, to be slaves. 
Saint Paul cared so much about being free from the 
slavery of sin and passion and free from the older cere- 
monials of religion that he thought any other slavery 
of slight importance. In modern times, however, liberty 
has often been called a natural right or a God-given 
right, that is, a right which belongs to man by his 
very nature, or by the gift of God. The two great 
reasons for freedom seem to be: first, that, as Julius 
Caesar long ago remarked, all men love liberty. It is 
cruel to thwart a deep desire of human nature unless 
this is necessary to secure some more important end. 
Second, that it is only as a man is free that he can 
really decide matters for himself; and it is only as he 
can decide matters for himself that he can be responsi- 
ble, or indeed be a real person. Many people would 
perhaps be more comfortable if owned by kind masters 
than if forced to struggle for themselves. The serfs 
were probably better off so far as getting food and 
shelter went than a great many laboring people today. 
Nevertheless few of these people would exchange lots 
with the serf. Freedom is in some ways a hard school, 
but it is the only school in which a man can learn to 
be fully a man. 

The second kind of liberty, national independence, 2. National 
is of course the direct affair of the state. A nation independ- 
likes to govern itself, just as a man likes to be his own ence 
master. It feels humiliated at the thought of being 



104 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

ruled. This desire for national independence was the 
chief concern of our fathers when they thought of lib- 
erty at the time of the American Revolution. So we 
speak of the long war of the Low Countries (Holland 
and Belgium) against foreign rulers — Burgundy and 
Spain — as a struggle for liberty. What is the im- 
portance of this kind of liberty? Is a country or a part 
of a country better off if it is ruled by its own people, 
and is it true to say that a people is not free if it is 
not independent? 

Consider Canada. Canada, like the United States 
before the Revolution, was a part of the British Em- 
pire, and still remains such, but its citizens consider 
that they enjoy liberty as truly as the people of the 
United States. They do not regard themselves as being 
ruled by a foreign power. They consider Great Britain 
as the Mother Country, and in turn Great Britain leaves 
them practically a free hand. 

In the case of Scotland there was long a party which 
believed it better to be independent of England. When 
we read Robert Burns's stirring poem called " Scots 
wha hae wi' Wallace bled," we think it was a 
fine thing to fight for the " freedom " of Scotland, and 
that " proud Edward's power " meant " chains and 
slavery." Yet if we look back and ask whether Scot- 
land was better off when it was independent, or after 
it became a part of the one nation of Great Britain, 
we can have no doubt that there has been more pros- 
perity, and even more liberty, in most senses of the 
word, for Scotchmen since their country has united with 
England. 

But contrast with this the case of Ireland. The 
country has been conquered several times, and has had 
various plans of government, but it has never prospered 



FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 105 

as has Scotland. Its people have considered themselves 
cruelly oppressed, and have sought " home rule " 
as the nearest practicable substitute for independence. 
They have felt much as the American colonists felt 
toward England in 1776. 

At the time of the Civil War in the United States, 
many people in the Southern States believed that the 
interests of their states were so different from those 
of the North that it would be better to form an inde- 
pendent nation. A few in the North thought the same, 
though the majority believed that to have two nations 
would lead to constant conflicts and that the reasons 
for union were stronger than those for separation. 

It is evident that national freedom is sometimes 
highly prized, and that sometimes, on the contrary, a 
people prefers to be part of a larger whole rather than 
to be independent. It seems to depend upon whether 
people of the two countries are so alike in race, lan- 
guage, traditions, and feelings that they can understand 
and sympathize with each other, and upon whether they 
have common interests. 

Suppose, however, a country which is so distinct 
from others in these respects that its people desire to 
be independent. What is the advantage of being inde- 
pendent as compared with being governed by another 
people, which perhaps seems to be more capable of 
ruling? This is a good deal like asking: What is the 
advantage to a boy of becoming independent when 
he is twenty-one years old, instead of remaining subject 
to his father as he does in China? We answer: If he 
is his own master a young man may make mistakes, 
but to give him his freedom is, on the whole, the best 
way to make him careful and responsible; if he is his 
own master he feels greater ambition and pride in doing 



106 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

well — he is more of a man — than if he is directed by 
another. In the case of a nation, both these reasons 
hold good, unless a people is so very ignorant as to 
be like a child instead of like a grown man. And there 
is also a third reason. Two peoples may in many 
respects have like interests, but the more widely sep- 
arated they are in soil or climate, or by barriers like 
mountains, the more probable it is that what one nation 
wants may not be good for the other. In this case 
the people which is ruled by the other is likely to be 
oppressed. 

To sum up then, we may say that national liberty 
is in most cases the first step toward other kinds of 
liberty. It is the source of ambition and patriotism. 
It teaches responsibility and is most likely to lead to 
national prosperity. 
3. Special We need not dwell long upon the third kind of lib- 
privilege erty, namely special privilege, as we have already 
given illustrations of it in speaking of the towns and 
gilds. But the most famous example is found in the 
liberties granted by Magna Carta. The Great Charter 
was not, as is often assumed, a general guarantee of 
liberty for the English people. It was a special treaty 
made by King John with the barons, and granted them 
certain special privileges which the people in general 
did not have. One such special privilege was that of 
being judged by their "peers." This meant that they 
need not be judged by the regular royal judges whom 
the barons would not admit to be their peers. 
The Charter made likewise an important grant to 
freemen : 

No freeman may be taken or imprisoned or dis-seized 
(put out of his house or lands) or outlawed or exiled or 
in any other way destroyed, injured, nor will we go or 



FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 107 

send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his 
peers, or by the law of the land. 

This was a " special privilege " which later became 
of great value for more and more of the people as they 
came to be free men and so could claim the protection 
of the law of the land. It was thus an example of what 
we shall speak of in the next chapter as one of the ways 
in which a special privilege of a small group becomes 
a means of liberty for a large number. 

Civil liberty was secured by a series of steps. The 4. Civil 
state very early established far better order than there liberty 
ha,d been under tribal society. This was a great step 
toward real freedom, for if a man is afraid of being 
murdered, or beaten, or robbed, or of having his house 
burned, he has not much liberty. A town might keep 
order inside its walls, but it could not well protect 
its merchants when on their journeys. The robber 
barons built castles from which they would pounce 
upon the merchants. Or the outlaws in the forest 
would waylay the traveler. The church did what it 
could to keep peace, for it forbade men to fight on 
certain days of the week. Yet it was the king who 
was most successful in keeping peace, and so in pro- 
tecting the liberties of people from general violence. 

But the subjects of the king would be far from free 
if the king himself might at any time seize their per- 
sons and hold them in prison, or take away their prop- 
erty. In a republic a man would not be free if the 
legislature could vote at any time to put him to death 
or banish him or confiscate his property, without show- 
ing that he had violated any law. It was then a great 
gain when a citizen could claim the right to be heard 
in court, and to be treated the same as all others, that 



108 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

is, to be judged by the law and not made a special 
victim of the malice or greed of the king or any other 
powerful lord. The common law and the courts thus 
came to defend the rights of citizens against arbitrary 
acts of the king himself. This seems to have been the 
origin of an idea which is fundamental in this country. 
Our fathers, when they organized the various states, 
determined to protect themselves from arbitrary acts 
by their rulers. So they framed constitutions in which 
they included a " bill of rights." These constitutions 
were to be the supreme law, and they guaranteed to 
all the citizens certain rights. If the legislature passed 
a measure in violation of these rights the courts refused 
to enforce it. In fact they went further; it became a 
settled principle that the courts might declare such a 
law unconstitutional and therefore not a law at all. Of 
course if the state needed money, or needed a particular 
piece of land it could get it. But it must get the money 
by the regular way of taxation, not by demanding a 
special sum of John Doe. It must pay compensation 
if it took land for public use. And equally of course 
if a man did wrong the state could punish him. But 
it must prove that he had broken a law. 

One of these rights specified in our Constitution is 
the right to a writ of habeas corpus. In former times 
a, man might sometimes be seized and kept in prison 
indefinitely without a trial. But now if a police officer 
takes a man to prison without accusing him of any 
definite offense, the man or his lawyer may apply for 
a writ of habeas corpus, which means " you may have 
the body." This commands the jailer, or whoever is 
holding the man prisoner, to bring him before the court 
in order that it may be learned whether he is being 
lawfully confined. 



FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 109 

Among all the rights which men have gained, none 
is more interesting than the right of trial by jury. At 
present this is regarded as a safeguard against unfair 
laws, or against attempts to execute or imprison men 
because of prejudice. But the jury was not at first 
a " right." It was a new way of deciding whether a 
man was guilty or not, and for a long time people were 
afraid of it. 

The old courts of the English had no jury. If a 
man was caught by some of the men who made up a 
court in the act of killing or stealing, then he was 
forthwith condemned and hanged. " He cannot gain- 
say it, so let him be hanged," was the rule. Failing 
this, the accused man might try to prove his innocence 
by ordeal or in some kinds of cases by battle. When 
these went out of use, trial by jury came in. This 
arose as follows : When the king had a controversy 
about land or other matter he could not be expected 
to go into wager of battle. He used the highly sensible 
plan of having the best and oldest men of the neighbor- 
hood called together to tell what they knew. They 
might be asked what land the king had, or who was 
suspected of murder or crime. This was called an 
" inquest," and we have a survival of it in the " coroner's 
inquest," an inquiry into the cause of some sudden 
or violent death. As the king's court came to offer to 
people more and more widely the opportunity to bring 
their cases before the king's judges, they allowed other 
persons as well as the king to use the same test. The 
old way of settling who owned a piece of land was 
often by a challenge to fight. Under this new plan 
a man who was challenged might get the case trans- 
ferred to the king's court ; and twelve men from the 
neighborhood — knights, if it was about so important 



110 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

a matter as ownership of land, or ordinary freemen 
if it was about a less important issue — would be called 
upon to say which had the better right. The twelve 
men were not, like a modern jury, supposed to hear 
witnesses. They were rather chosen as the men that 
would know most about the case already. In those 
days, just as now in country districts, neighbors knew 
best whether a piece of ground had always belonged 
to a certain farm, or whether this cow belongs to A or 
to B. This use of a jury was what is called a civil 
as contrasted with a criminal procedure. Such a jury 
was a sort of umpire or referee. 

In criminal trials the use of a jury came in more 
slowly. The king or sheriff might, as we have seen, 
call an inquest to learn who, if any one, was suspected 
of stealing. If twelve men said that John Doe was 
suspected, then John Doe must stand trial. But the 
trial at first would be by the old test. Doe must try 
the ordeal of fire or water. Unless he was caught in 
the act, his neighbors would not dare to hang him on 
suspicion; they left it to God to show whether he was 
guilty or innocent. But suppose Doe were willing to 
leave it to his neighbors to say whether he were guilty 
or not. Then it was thought fair to take him at his 
word. Either the jury which first charged him with 
being a suspicious character, or a new twelve called 
in to give an independent opinion, might say whether 
he was guilty. The clergy were in 1215 forbidden to 
take any part in the old superstitious ordeals. Hence 
this jury plan was really the only one left except trial 
by battle, and the courts favored the plan of trial by 
jury. Still they did not dare to condemn a man by 
a jury unless he consented to this way of trial. To 
take away a man's life without his having a chance to 



FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 111 

appeal to God was too much of a responsibility. 
Hence a man was asked to consent to the trial by jury 
and they could not try him without his consent. 

This belief that a man could not be tried by a jury 
unless he consented might seem to leave an easy way 
of escape for wrongdoers, or even for an innocent man 
who feared the prejudice of his neighbors. But in 
order to avoid this very thing the law adopted a rather 
stupid and cruel scheme to keep up the fiction that a 
man must consent to trial. If a man would not consent 
he might be starved, or he might have weights piled 
upon his naked chest until he yielded or died. It is 
a painful instance of how long a barbarous custom 
may survive that one man in America was pressed to 
death in this way. It was fitting that the crime of 
which he was accused was witchcraft, for this showed 
that old superstitions and old legal customs are both 
very persistent. 

Political liberty means having a share in govern- 5. Political 
ment. In a small town this may take the form of a liberty 
general town meeting where the voters decide directly 
on what they will expend for roads, schools, and other 
objects. Greek cities managed their own affairs in this 
way and it was thought a city ought not to be larger 
than could be governed by such a meeting. But the 
modern method is usually by choosing " representa- 
tives " to make laws and to perform other duties. 

We now believe that political liberty, or self-govern- 
ment, is important for two reasons: first, as being the 
surest guarantee of the civil liberties already described ; 
second, as being in itself a power which gives dignity 
and worth to men and trains them to responsibility. 

Who had a share in the national government at the 



112 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

beginning? As we have already seen, it was first of all 
the king and the leading warriors, although the king 
employed also a number of churchmen to be his ad- 
visers and helpers in administering justice and keeping 
accounts. The great multitude of the men of the king- 
dom, to say nothing of the women, had no share what- 
ever in the national government, except as servants or 
officers of the king. The king, with his council of chief 
men, " magnates " as they were sometimes called, was 
the authority. The sheriff was appointed as the king's 
servant to keep order and collect taxes. The judges 
were the king's servants to collect his fines and hang 
those who disturbed his peace. The chancellor of the 
exchequer was his treasurer and bookkeeper; but none 
of these had any authority of his own. 

The first great enlargement in the government we 
have already hinted at in Chapter V. The king sum- 
moned burgesses of the towns and knights of the shires 
to meet him. At first, he had no intention of giving 
them a share in governing. He got them together 
merely to tax them. Parliament was not anything that 
the people wanted. It was forced upon the people by 
the king. The clergy who were at first called to sit in 
Parliament managed to evade the duty and to sit by 
themselves and vote their supplies independently. Then 
men of high rank, the large landholders, tried 
to avoid going and preferred to pay a fine rather than 
to become a knight and so be liable for duty. In order 
to get these men to attend, the king's writs which 
summoned representatives of the shires demanded 
" belted knights," and a statute was passed that the 
representatives must be " gentlemen born," which im- 
plies that the " gentlemen " were more than willing to 
allow their inferiors all the " honor " of attending the 



FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 113 

nation's assembly. In the boroughs men bribed the 
sheriff to let them off. In short, as Professor Jenks 
puts the matter, 

" The counties hated it because they had to pay the 
wages of their members. The boroughs hated it because 
(in England at least) the parliamentary boroughs (those 
which were summoned to send members to Parliament) 
paid a higher scale of taxation than their humbler sisters. 
And all hated it because a Parliament invariably meant 
' taxation.' " 

Bat by and by it was discovered that to grant 
money gave a good chance to petition for redress of 
wrong or for privileges. It also in time gave a chance 
to get favors for the towns which were represented. 
And when at times it came about that there were rivals 
for the throne, then Parliament sometimes found that 
it had real power in aiding one rather than another. 
In these ways the House of Commons came to take 
the lead which at first the greater barons had held, and 
to exercise more and more control over the king. 

It was significant, however, that when the Parlia- 
ment came to have real power the people of social rank 
became anxious to attend themselves, and proceeded to 
limit the persons who should have any choice in electing 
them. A law was passed limiting the right to vote to 
those " freeholders " (a certain class of landowners) 
who owned land renting for forty shillings or more. 
As this would be the rental for eighty acres it would 
include only a small part of the people ; but this law re- 
mained unchanged for four hundred years in England. 
In the eighteenth century there were only about 160,000 
voters in a population of 8,000,000. This would be 
about one in ten of the grown men, or less than one in 
twenty men and women. Until 1832, then, the part 



114 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

of the nation which had anything to say about govern- 
ment was less than one in twenty of the people over 
twenty-one years of age. 

In the boroughs the case was worse. The repre- 
sentatives were sometimes chosen by the town officers, 
sometimes by those who had the " freedom of the town " 
(gained by membership in the merchants' gild), some- 
times by those who owned certain houses or lots (the 
voting right was transferred to the new owner if the 
property changed hands). So it was often a very small 
group that named the representatives, and sometimes 
the vote was " owned " or controlled entirely by the 
large landlord, or by the king. 

When we consider how small a proportion of the 
people had any actual share in the government, we 
wonder that the English people secured as many rights 
as they had. On the other hand, we are not surprised 
that the common law for many years treated the vil- 
leins as having no property rights, and that Parliament 
passed a series of laws of a kind which we should call 
" class-legislation." Such was the act forbidding 
children to learn any craft if they had followed the 
plow to the age of twelve years; the act forbidding 
the tenant to send his boy to school except by consent 
of the lord; the acts fixing wages and compelling la- 
borers to work at the wages fixed; the provision that 
unmarried persons under thirty not having any trade 
and not belonging to a nobleman's household might be 
compelled to labor at the request of any person using 
an art or mystery (a trade) ; and that persons between 
twelve and sixty, not otherwise employed, might be 
compelled to serve by the year in husbandry, and that 
unmarried women between twelve and forty might be 
compelled to serve likewise. It was also prescribed that 



FIRST STEPS IN LIBERTY 115 

persons of certain classes must not leave the parish 
boundaries under penalty of a heavy fine, and in order 
that boys might remember where these limits were they 
were sometimes taken round the boundaries and there 
publicly whipped. 

It is surprising, on the whole, that when the colonists 
came to America they were as liberal as they were in 
the matter of suffrage. The main reasons are perhaps 
two. First, the colonists were themselves very largely 
of one class ; very few of the gentry emigrated. The 
other factor which soon began its work was the influ- 
ence of the frontier, of which more will be said later. 

The liberty, which depends upon education and 6. Freedom 
self-control, was for a long time left either to the fr <> m 
church or to individuals to work out for themselves. ab] 
Early schools and universities were largely established 
by the church. The great universities, Paris, Oxford, 
and Cambridge, date back to the twelfth century. The 
cloisters and abbeys maintained schools for training 
monks. The gentry had private tutors. The common 
people had very little opportunity. When the Bible 
was translated into English and men came to believe 
that they ought to study it for themselves, a new mo- 
tive came in to stimulate the desire of the common man 
to read. Another influence which aided education was 
the growth of trade, for some knowledge of arithmetic 
and reading was very convenient for keeping accounts 
and carrying on business. 

The growth of science and discovery as distinct from 
education was largely due to individual men who had 
the passion for understanding the world. When the 
telescope enabled man to see the moon and other heav- 
enly bodies more clearly he began to realize that the 



and fear 



116 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

sky which used to be regarded as the dwelling place 
of all kinds of evil and dangerous spirits, was really 
the same kind of place as the earth. A great load of 
superstitious fear was thus taken off the minds of men. 
And when Newton discovered the laws of gravitation 
men felt that they could really count upon the moon 
and planets to move in a regular and uniform way. 
By this means, man was becoming free of his world, 
that is, he felt that he understood it better, and was 
not so fearful. 

But in this progress of education and science the 
state at first had little part. Not until recently has the 
state undertaken to establish universities and public 
schools of all kinds, which are now so important for 
the maintenance of this sixth kind of liberty. 

In conclusion, then, of this sketch of how the mem- 
bership of the state has grown, we may say that up to 
the time when the early American colonists left Eng- 
land, the national state governed all the people, but 
only a small part of the people were full members of 
it. Beginning with the king and his warriors and 
advisers, the governing class had come to include the 
larger landholders, and the more prosperous merchants 
and craftsmen. The great bulk of those who rented 
farms or worked on them, and of those who lived in 
towns, had no share in making their laws or carrying 
on the state. Under a good king there was sometimes 
a degree of government for the people; there was no 
government by the people. Before there could be 
democracy the state must include all. 



CHAPTER XII 

PROGRESS OF LIBERTY: FROM SPECIAL 
PRIVILEGES TO EQUAL RIGHTS 

HOW have men gained these various kinds of How 
liberty which we have sketched in the preced- l lber {l y 
ing chapter? We may say broadly that they gained 
have gained them: (1) By fighting for them; (2) by 
bargaining for them; (3) by appeals to reason and 
sympathy as voiced by prophets, poets, and philoso- 
phers. Both the first two methods have usually secured 
" liberties " or privileges for certain groups — barons, 
or " freemen," or white men, or men as contrasted with 
women. Hence we shall have to trace also how liberties 
won for the few have been extended to larger and 
larger numbers, and it will be convenient to speak of 
the influence of prophets, poets, and philosophers last 
of all. We consider in this chapter the methods of 
fighting and bargaining. 

It is natural to think first of the method of gaining 1. Gaining 
liberty by fighting, and to suppose that it has been the liberty 
most important method. It is, however, only under _ y , . 
certain conditions that fighting has accomplished much 
for any of the kinds of liberty except national inde- 
pendence. It is easy to exaggerate its importance be- 
cause our histories tell so much more about wars than 
about bargains, or the work of the courts, or the growth 
of new ideas about men's rights. It is no doubt true 
also that a war is so dramatic that it appeals to our 

117 



118 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

imagination and feeling and is more vividly realized 
than the conflicts between ideas. We read how the 
English barons at Runnymede compelled King John to 
grant them the privileges which are set down in the 
Great Charter. Or we think of the Peasant Revolt 
when the peasants of England, who were then mainly 
serfs, suddenly marched to London and demanded 
emancipation. Or of the war in England between King 
Charles I and the Parliament, as the result of which 
the king was beheaded. Or of the American Revolu- 
tion or French Revolution. Some of these did accom- 
plish something; some of them, like the Peasant Re- 
volt, failed. Another Peasant Revolt, which took place 
in Germany in 1525, seemed for a time likely to suc- 
ceed, but it ended in the triumph of the lords, who 
put to death 100,000 or more of the peasants, and left 
them worse off than ever, so that they remained serfs 
for more than two hundred years after it. 
Why Why has a fight for freedom so often failed? The 

revolts case of t h e Peasants' Revolt in England in 1381 is 

instructive. A great body of peasants, who at that 
time were villeins, marched to London and demanded 
of the king, " We will that you free us forever, us and 
our lands, and that we be nevermore named or held for 
serfs." They were promised this by the king and even 
given charters of freedom, but (1) they had no friend 
in the actual government and they were not themselves 
ready to upset the whole state and rule themselves. 
They had, therefore, no security except, the king's word. 
As soon as they had scattered and the king was no 
longer afraid of them, he refused to keep his promise, 
and when shown his own charters, answered scornfully : 
" Villeins you were and villeins you are. In bondage 
you shall abide, and that not your old bondage but a 



fail 



SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO EQUAL RIGHTS 119 

worse." Parliament likewise, made up as it was of 
landlords or townsmen, had no sympathy for the peas- 
ants, and when the question of freeing the villeins was 
submitted to them, they said that they would never 
consent " were they all to die in one day." Promises 
of a ruling class cannot be relied upon to secure 
freedom. 

(2) The peasants committed acts of violence, 
burned buildings, pillaged houses, and thus made the 
townsfolk turn against them. 

If now we ask, " Why did not the peasants keep 
control of the government when they had frightened 
the king into yielding? " and, " Why did they not keep 
order in their own uprising so as to keep the sympathy 
of neutrals ? " the answer is that they were not well 
enough educated to think out all these things. When 
the king and his band of warriors originally established 
the beginnings of a state, they killed off their enemies, 
but kept a strict discipline. When they had thus kept 
order for a long period there would be many people 
who would prefer order even if a great body of villeins 
were unfairly treated, and so would side with the king 
and the law. The Peasants' War in Germany in 1525 
failed for about the same reasons. 

Consider now the revolutions which succeeded, such 
as that against King Charles. (1) The rebels in this 
case were as well educated as the king's party. (2) 
They had control of Parliament, and so had a regular 
way of carrying on government and keeping order. 
This kept the favor of the business people in the towns. 
(3) Besides, they were fortunate enough to have a 
general of great ability, Oliver Cromwell, who so or- 
ganized his troops that they were more than a match 
for professionals. 



120 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



The American Revolution was carried on by men 
who had practice in governing and were intelligent and 
able to keep order. The French Revolution was also 
begun by those who had a place in the French Parlia- 
ment. And, although the people of Paris rose as a 
mob when things did not move fast enough to suit 
them; although this mob stormed the Bastille — the 
prison — and compelled the execution of the king and 
queen, it was, after all, because there were men in the 
government able to carry out plans for reform that 
any permanent gain was made. 

The fighting which has most helped the cause of 
liberty has been the fighting between leaders, not the 
fighting of common people against rulers. In England, 
France, and Germany the king and the lords struggled 
against each other and each side kept the other from 
being strong enough to do as it pleased. The party 
that felt weaker would appeal to the towns or common 
people for help. Out of the struggles between these 
parties and the need of getting the common people on 
one side or the other, great gains for liberty have since 
been made. History shows that fighting has won little 
directly for freedom unless the fighters have first been 
sufficiently well-educated to organize and submit to dis- 
cipline, and second, have had training in government. 



2. Gaining 
liberty 
by 
bargaining 



To gain rights by buying them may seem a 
strange way, but as regards civil rights — protection 
from oppression by some ruling class or by the govern- 
ment — men have gained more by bargaining than by 
fighting. These bargains have nearly always been made 
by some group or class for itself. Then later on the 
class might be enlarged so that more would share in it. 
Many illustrations of this are found in English history, 



SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO EQUAL RIGHTS 121 

but three of the most striking are (1) the rights of 
"freemen" secured in Magna Carta, (2) the rights of 
towns secured by special charters, (3) the rights of 
petition and at last to have a share in making laws, 
which were secured by bargains with the king in ex- 
change for grants of money. 

Magna Carta is frequently spoken of as if it granted 
liberty. It really granted " liberties," that is, special 
privileges to certain groups. We have already quoted 
one of its provisions as to freemen. At first this did 
not help most Englishmen at all. It granted 6i lib- 
erty " to those who already were " free," that is, to a 
small part of the people. Yet when in later times the 
serfs gained their freedom they could then enjoy the 
benefits of the law for freemen. 

The towns gained privileges or " liberties " from the 
king by giving him money. These privileges included 
the right to trade, and indeed the monopoly, with 
certain exceptions, of trading within the bounds of the 
town. They included also the right to be free from 
certain taxes and duties which others had to pay. To 
have the " freedom " of the town thus meant a great 
deal. But this " liberty " did not belong to every one 
living in the town. It belonged only to those who were 
members of " the corporation " or of the gild. And 
later on, when craft gilds arose, they also had certain 
privileges for their members. Yet this right, which was 
at first for the few, became extended to many as the 
towns multiplied and other groups in them came to 
have a share in citizenship. 

But the most striking case of liberty gained by bar- 
gaining is seen in the origin of political liberty, that 
is — right to share in governing. So far as governing 
means lawmaking, no one in early times really thought 



122 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



How 

Parliament 
gained 
power 



of making laws. The customs of the old tribes and 
villages were not thought of as made by any one. 
They had simply been the customs as far back as any 
one knew. When the people came together in the court 
of the hundred or the shire they declared what the 
customs were, but did not think of making new ones. 
The first laws of the king, for example, the laws of 
King Ine before the Norman Conquest, were a sort of 
summary of the customs. 

The Norman kings were in theory the absolute 
rulers. They had a council of their chief men, includ- 
ing bishops and abbots, as well as earls and barons. 
The chief business of this council was to act as a sort 
of court to decide cases, although when the king issued 
an edict he did it " with the advice " of his great men. 
However, this advising of the great men with the king 
would probably never have led to liberty. It was be- 
cause the king needed more and more money, especially 
for wars, that he was led to enlarge his council and to 
grant it more powers. For though the king had much 
land, and besides could take fines and " aids " of his 
tenants which would enable him to get on fairly well in 
time of peace, he wanted more than this for war. And 
besides, some of the towns were now so prosperous 
that it seemed a pity not to squeeze more money from 
them. The church, too, had much land. So King 
Edward called together not only his tenants and the 
clergy, but representatives from the towns and shires 
to ask them for grants of money. As has been 
stated, no one was anxious to go. It was like receiv- 
ing an invitation to attend a meeting at which a church 
debt is to be raised, or like a summons from a sheriff 
today to attend court in order to pay a fine. 

But when the king sent a summons, men did not 



SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO EQUAL RIGHTS 123 

dare stay away. And when they were in his royal 
palace they did not like to refuse the king's demands, 
even though they knew they would be unpopular at 
home if they promised him a generous grant. The 
best they could do was to make as good a bargain as 
possible. If they granted the king money, would he 
not listen to their petitions and redress certain wrongs ? 
By and by they succeeded in making it the regular 
order of procedure that petitions should be heard first 
before taxes were granted. Petitions were put into 
the form of bills to which the king had to answer yes 
or no, and thus the right of lawmaking and sharing in 
the government was secured by landowners and towns, 
through bargains rather than through battles. Here 
again liberties were first bought for certain small 
groups, and then gradually extended when villeins and 
artisans came to share in freedom. 

When liberties had been obtained for special groups, From 
the next step was to extend these liberties to all men, special 
so that there came to be equal rights. liberties 

Two methods have been common. The first way is ? , e / 

ri2rnts 

that by which most of the villeins became " free," 
namely, when men get education or wealth, they make 
their way one by one into a privileged class. The other 
way is by the help of the law; for the law tends to 
break down bounds between classes, to treat all 
according to a general rule, and to oppose special privi- 
leges and monopolies. We shall consider each of these 
in turn. 

The value of education in helping a man to gain By 
freedom was shown especially in the church. The old education 
idea of " noble " birth was against any change in con- 
dition from father to son. In one way, military life 



124 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

tended to break down the old barriers and introduce 
competition, just as the desire of a college for success 
in athletics leads it to give every man a chance to try 
for the team, and thus to get teams made up of men 
with ability rather than merely of men whose brothers 
were football stars or whose fathers are distinguished 
men. Still, when one race conquers another the military 
chiefs themselves are apt to begin a new line of families. 
So " dukes " are called from " dux," a leader, " counts " 
from " comites," companions of the king — and the idea 
of noble blood takes a new lease of life. The conquered 
race would be regarded as base-born, and its occupa- 
tions, such as plowing or weaving, as not fit for gen- 
tlemen. The church was not controlled by the idea 
of birth so far as its own ranks were concerned. It 
took peasant boys or town boys or sons of gentle folk, 
and if they were bright enough they might aspire to 
any rank. Funds were established to enable poor boys 
to study at Oxford and Cambridge. The paths to law 
and to the service of the king as ministers, judges, or 
chancellor likewise lay open, for all these officers were 
" clerks," that is, " clerics." If they could read they 
could have the u benefit of clergy." 
By The path to freedom by gaining wealth was that fol- 

property lowed by many. The Danes, who had much influence 
in early customs of northeastern England, honored the 
successful trader and merchant. In the early days of 
Saxon England a " ceorl " (a member of the lower 
class ) might become a " thegn " if he had five or six 
hundred acres of land; " and if a merchant throve so 
that he fared thrice over the wide sea by his own means, 
then was he thenceforth by thegn-right worthy " (Laws 
of Wessex, 920 a.d.). Later it was a question of how 
the villein might become " free," that is, free to leave 



SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO EQUAL RIGHTS 125 

his native place, and to work for wages instead of 
giving so many days in the week to his lord. It seems 
to have been partly a matter of individual bargaining. 
It was often more profitable to the lord to have the 
villein " commute " his services by money, that is, pay 
a certain rent in money instead of working several 
days in the week. If then the villein could earn good 
wages he would become free. 

To get the " freedom of a town," the direct way 
was to become a merchant and belong to the merchant 
gild. As most merchants were also " masters " of some 
craft, this usually meant serving as an apprentice. But 
the villein who ran away and lived for a year and a 
day within a free town became in this way free also. 

It is as true now as ever that the individual who 
wants to gain real freedom must in some way gain 
education or property in order to secure opportunities. 

It may seem that in these ways of gaining freedom 
and rights — by fighting and bargaining, by gaining 
education and property — the nation was not of any 
use. This would be to forget that in the first place 
the nation has made order possible, has made it possible 
to have trade and property, and to make contracts, 
and thus laid the foundation for securing the various 
liberties. Yet these are, after all, indirect. In modern 
times the state works more directly for liberty by con- 
ducting schools, by affording opportunities through 
public lands for people to secure homes of their own, 
by protecting them from accident and disease. The 
indirect ways came first because, as we have so often 
noted, the nation was in the first place a band of war- 
riors and cared little for equal rights. 

But there was one part of the national government By law 
which from the first was working more directly to make 



126 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

rights equal. This was the system of the king's courts 
which built up the common law. We are speaking, it 
is to be kept in mind, of such rights as the right to go 
and come, to be free from the danger of being seized 
and placed in some prison, whether of king, or duke, 
or bishop, and to be safe from having one's property 
seized. Who would want to do these things, and why? 
The king might want to put a man in prison to get 
money from him, or in order to get him out of the 
way, if he criticised the king's acts. It might be 
thought that a large body like Parliament would have 
no grudge against any individual, yet Parliament was 
quite willing at times to condemn a man unheard by 
simply passing an " Act of Attainder " against him — 
a procedure which is forbidden by the Constitution in 
this country. Why would the judges be any better 
than the king or Parliament? Some judges have doubt- 
less been as brutal as any king, and we cannot say that 
they have cared any more for the particular men who 
have come before them than either king or Parliament. 
The difference has been that judges adopted the plan 
of following general rules. 

One circumstance which may have had some part in 
the change from decisions based on local customs to 
decisions based on general rules was that under King 
Henry II the judges were sent about the kingdom 
from shire to shire to hear complaints of various sorts. 
If any one is doing such work as this he almost neces- 
sarily begins to follow a general rule. He does not 
know the different people who come before him, and 
so is more and more inclined to think of his rules and 
less and less of the particular case. Add to this that 
after a time the judges were prepared for their work 
by reading the decisions that others had made, or even 



SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO EQUAL RIGHTS 127 

the rules which had come down from the laws of Rome 
and you have another reason why judges tried to act 
by rules. 

But suppose the rules themselves are hard or cruel, Why a 
will not this make a government by law worse than a government 
government by kings or town meetings without any y s 
laws? This is a question to which there are two sides. <j emocra ti c 
It is true that a law which is oppressive, like the laws force 
on the subject of slavery, or villenage, or witchcraft, 
could be much harder than men would be in dealing 
with their personal acquaintances; and a judge who was 
acting under such a law might be obliged to be more 
severe than if he followed his own feeling as to what 
would be right in the particular case. In slavery days 
a master who knew his slaves and had sympathy would 
be much more humane than the law. The great phi- 
losopher Plato discussed this question whether a gov- 
ernment by laws or a government by men without laws 
is better. He decided that if you could have a ruler 
who was both wise and just he would give a better 
government without being constrained by laws, but that 
taking men as we find them, a government by laws is 
safer. 

Why safer? The chief reasons why, on the whole, 
a government by laws is safer are perhaps two: (a) 
Laws represent the wisdom of several men, not of one 
man. One man may sometimes have a better idea than 
is likely to be adopted by a group and be made law, 
but ordinarily no one man is likely to think of all the 
interests to. be affected and so his ideas are liable to 
be one-sided. 

(b) More important is this: If any rule is followed 
strictly and impartially in all cases, it is soon per- 
ceived whether it is a good rule or a bad one. If it 



128 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

is a cruel or one-sided law, then the more strictly it 
is enforced the more people will be injured and the 
more enemies it will make. And this will tend to get 
it changed. A king might pull out one by one the 
teeth of a Jew from whom he wished to squeeze money, 
and this would not necessarily excite any fear among 
other rich men. But suppose it were made a law that 
all men must contribute to the king as much money as 
he asks for at any time, under penalty of having their 
teeth drawn one by one each day; then there would 
soon be powerful opposition. Equality before the law 
compels men to make common cause with all others 
affected as they are, whereas without this men tend to 
want special favors and to let others shift for them- 
selves. It is thus a strong democratic force. 



CHAPTER XIII 

INFLUENCE OF IDEAS UPON THE PROGRESS 
OF LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY 

IF we wish to tell at all completely the story of 
liberty, we shall have to add to all these forces 
which have been at work in the national state the 
influence of great men, men who have had ideas of a 
better and juster society, and have put these into the 
minds of rulers and judges, or into the general senti- 
ment of their peoples. We may note three classes of 
such great men. 

The first type is those whom we call prophets or Religious 
religious teachers. Ancient Israel had many of this teachers 
type. Amos, Isaiah, and many others pleaded power- and 
fully for the cause of the poor, and the laws of Israel * er ^ 
were made more humane by their teachings. Chris- 
tianity held that all men are equal before God. It 
dwelt a great deal in the Middle Ages upon God as a 
judge. It held, however, that He was so great and just 
a being that to Him human ranks and titles were of no 
account. He judged men according to their hearts, 
not according to their birth or wealth. This was in 
flat contradiction to the earlier laws of the Saxons, 
according to which a higher fine had to be paid for 
killing a man of good birth than for killing a man of 
low birth, and a man of low birth had to pay a heavier 
fine than a man well-born. The belief that men are 
equal before God did not at once do away with slavery 
nor with class privileges ; but the tendency was in that 
direction. The Peasants' Revolt of the fifteenth cen- 

129 



130 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

tury was largely aroused by a priest, John Ball, who 
put his doctrines into rhymes. 

" When Adam delved and Eve span, 
Who was then the gentleman?" 

Equity Another way in which religious influence directly af- 

fected English law was through that particular part 
of the law which is called " Equity." Equity was a 
plan to provide remedies for wrongs which the law 
courts did not set right. Men went to the king's chan- 
cellor, who was usually a bishop, and complained they 
could not get redress through the king's other courts. 
They " urged that they were poor while their adver- 
saries were mighty, too mighty for the common law, 
with its long delays and purchasable juries." Or they 
had made certain agreements with neighbors or friends 
which the common law would not undertake to enforce 
because it had no rules which applied. Would not the 
chancellor enforce these honorable understandings, 
these "uses, trusts, or confidences"? The chancellor 
in deciding these cases was at liberty to follow his 
conscience. He could ask what was fair, or equitable, 
or what belonged to good faith. This saved the 
law from becoming utterly rigid. It brought a new 
element of conscience into it. 
Philoso- The second type of great men who have helped 

phers and liberty and democracy we call philosophers. Stoic phi- 
liberty losophers in Greece argued against slavery. Cicero 
urges that men are equal. " There is no one thing so 
like or so equal to another as in every instance is man 
to man." All share in the common gift of reason. 
Now law is merely what right reason requires ; hence in 
giving us reason, nature gives us law. " And if nature 
has given us law she hath also given us right. But 
she has bestowed reason on all, therefore right has 



INFLUENCE OF IDEAS 131 

been bestowed on all." A Roman lawyer who lived 
later than Cicero wrote, " By the law of nature men 
were born free." This fine thought did not lead men 
at once to abolish slavery; but it was later to become 
a watchword of freedom in England and America and 
France. 

Four modern writers who aided greatly in advancing 
the cause of human rights were Milton, Locke, Rous- 
seau, and Jefferson. Milton was the great Puritan 
writer and the early settlers of New England were 
Puritans. Milton and Locke had great influence upon 
the ideas of our forefathers in America. John Locke 
was read in all parts of the United States, and probably 
did more to influence the thoughts of men at the time 
of the American Revolution than any other writer. 

Milton was writing to defend those who had over- Milton 
thrown and beheaded Charles I. This rebellion and 
execution seemed to many people the greatest of crimes. 
Some had believed that the king could do no wrong, 
and that whatever evils his people might suffer, they 
could never under any circumstances be justified in 
rebelling against him. Milton wished to show that 
men are not bound to obey a wicked king. The title 
of his first book runs : 

" The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates : Proving That 
it is Lawfull and hath been held so through all Ages, for 
any who have the Power, to call to account a Tyrant, 
or wicked KING, and after due conviction, to depose and 
put him to death if the ordinary magistrate have neglected 
or denied to do it." 

Milton wanted to prove that the rights of people are 
older than the rights of kings. He claimed therefore 
that men were born free and that kings and other 
rulers were appointed to prevent violence: 



132 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

" No man who knows ought, can be so stupid to deny that 
all men naturally were borne free, being the image and 
resemblance of God himselfe, and were by privilege above 
all creatures, borne to command and not to obey." 

In a later book, entitled " Second Defense of the 
People of England," Milton declares the right for kings 
of " doing what they please is not justice but injustice, 
ruin, and despair," and addressing Cromwell, he con- 
tinues : 

" You cannot be truly free unless we are free too ; for such 
is the nature of things, that he, who entrenches on the 
liberty of others, is the first to lose his own and become a 
slave." 

The power of kings and magistrates is held in trust 
by them from the people " to the common good of them 
all." To say, " The King hath as good right to his 
crown and dignitie, as any man to his inheritance is 
to make the subject no better than the King's slave, 
his chattel, or his possession that may be bought and 
sould." 
John John Locke is less passionate than Milton, but for 

Locke that very reason he appeals especially to lawyers and 

statesmen. He dwells upon the state of nature, in 
which he supposes men to have lived at first: 

" To understand political power aright, and derive it 
from its original [origin], we must consider what estate 
all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect 
freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their pos- 
sessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds 
of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending 
upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, 
wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no 
one having: more than another." 



INFLUENCE OF IDEAS 133 

Or again, in another passage, which you will see 
reads like the Declaration of Independence, he pro- 
claims essentially democratic doctrines — freedom, equal- 
ity, self-government: 

" Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, 
no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the 
political power of another without his own consent." 

Men form governments, he continues, by agreeing 
with others to join and unite into a community. They 
make a compact or contract. The purpose of this is 
the " preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates. 
If governments act contrary to the trust that is placed 
in them the right of the rulers is forfeited: 

" The people have a right to act as supreme and con- 
tinue the legislative in themselves or place it in a new form, 
or new hands as they think good." 

Finally we may mention among the philosophers, Blackstone 
who did much to express the conviction of freedom and 
liberty, Blackstone, the famous author of the " Com- 
mentaries on the Laws of England," which were pub- 
lished in 1765. He has been studied by practically all 
English and American lawyers since his day. We 
might say that his writings have seemed almost sacred 
to them. When we remember that in America our legis- 
latures are very largely made up of lawyers, so that our 
laws are made as well as applied by Blackstone's dis- 
ciples, we can appreciate what a great influence he has 
exerted. In the first chapter of his book he speaks of 
the rights of men as " absolute." He means by this 
that they come before all laws and all society. It is 
the same theory which Locke has in mind, but it is 
stated even more emphatically: 



134 



BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 



Rousseau 



Jefferson 



Men of 
letters 
and 
liberty 



" For the principal aim of society is to protect indi- 
viduals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which 
were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature, but 
which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual 
assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution 
of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that 
the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain 
and regulate those absolute rights of individuals." 

What, now, are these absolute or natural rights of 
man? 

" The absolute rights of man . . . are usually summed up 
in one general appellation and denominated the natural 
liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly 
in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint 
or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right 
inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man 
at his creation when he endued him with the faculty of 
free-will." 

In France, a famous writer, Rousseau, expressed the 
ideas of Locke as to men's original liberty in even more 
eloquent words. He helped kindle a passionate love of 
freedom in all Western Europe. In America, Thomas 
Jefferson, who read Locke and Blackstone and Rous- 
seau, put these ideas into the great Declaration of 
Independence, through which they have become a part 
of American government and American ideas. Some- 
times it seems as though writings and ideas of phi- 
losophers did not have great weight. But in such a 
case as this it is easy to see that ideas of liberty and 
democracy have become the basis of government and 
laws. 

The third type of men who have advanced the cause 
of liberty includes writers, some in poetry, some in 
prose, who have voiced the protests of the oppressed 
and the passion for justice in words that have touched 



INFLUENCE OF IDEAS 135 

the heart and stirred the conscience. From ancient 
Egypt one powerful appeal of such a writer has come 
down to us called " The Appeal of the Eloquent Peas- 
ant." A government official had unjustly seized the 
donkeys of a poor peasant. The unhappy man whose 
sole means of livelihood has thus been taken away 
appeals to Pharaoh's Grand Steward for justice. Other 
officials ridicule the poor man and his case seems 
desperate. The steward is entertained by the eloquent 
words of the peasant, but puts him off from day to 
day. The symbol of the balances is used to emphasize 
the demand for fair dealing: 

" Ward off the robber, protect the wretched, become not 
a torrent against him who pleads. Take heed, for eternity 
draws near. . . . Do the balances err? Does the scale 
beam swerve to one side? . . . Do justice for the sake 
of the lord of justice. . . . For justice is for eternity. 
It descends with him that doeth it into the grave. . . . His 
name is not effaced on earth; he is remembered because of 
good." 

In England many songs have come down from nearly 
every reign protesting against oppression. The earlier 
ones, such as those which praise Simon de Montfort, 
are in French. In the time of King Edward I we 
have them in early English, and some of them show, 
even in translation, the spirit of protest. 

" Thus men rob the poor and pick him full clean, 
The rich take at will without any right; 
Their lands and their people are lying full lean; 
Thro orders of bailiffs so sad is their plight." * 

* " Thus me lileth the pore and pyketh f ul clene, 
Te ryche raymeth withouten eny ryht; 
Ar londes and ar loedes liggeth fol lene; 
Thorh biddyng of baylyfs such harm hem hath hiht." 



136 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

The familiar Robin Hood ballads voiced the accumu- 
lated protest of a subject race against the oppression 
Robin practised by Norman kings, of the lower classes 

Hood against the brutality and state abuses of King John's 

day. Robin Hood was living as an outlaw in the Green- 
wood, waging war against the sheriff and always getting 
the better of him. He was generous to the poor, and did 
not harm yeomen and laborers, but one time he slew 
fourteen out of fifteen foresters who same to arrest 
him: he slew the sheriff, the judge, the town gate- 
keeper. He was so popular that in the sixteenth cen- 
tury his commemoration day was observed. Taine 
quotes from the experience of Bishop Latimer who, on 
coming to a church where preaching had been an- 
nounced, 

" found the doors closed and waited more than an hour 
before they brought him the key. At last a man came 
and said to him, ' Syr, thys ys a busye day with us ; we 
cannot heare you: it is Robyn Hoodes Daye. The parishe 
are gone abrode to gather for Robyn Hoode. ... I was 
fayne there to geve place to Robyn Hoode/ " 

Langland, in 1362, pleaded for justice to the humble 
laborer. Even of the beggars Piers Plowman says, 
" They are my brethren by blood, for God bought us 
all." And he urges impressively that in death at least 
men must leave their distinctions of rank. " In the 
charnel-house at the church it is hard to know a knight 
from a knave." 

The discovery of America seemed to suggest that a 

better day might dawn now that a new world had 

come into view. It called out a famous book by Sir 

More's Thomas More called Utopia in which he pictured a 

Utopia country with perfect laws and perfect society. This 

was not a new idea. Prophets, philosophers, and men 



INFLUENCE OF IDEAS 137 

of letters had alike held up visions of a better day. 
In ancient Israel, when the kingdom was no longer so 
glorious as under David and Solomon, when the poor 
were oppressed and there was great injustice, prophets 
began to look forward to a new and better kingdom 
of peace and righteousness. The early Christian 
writer, John, had a vision of a heavenly city in which 
God should reign, a city in which there should be no 
more war. In Greece the philosopher Plato described 
an ideal city in which rulers would be selected because 
of their wisdom. Every one should do the work for 
which he was best fitted, whether it were that of the 
brave soldier to defend the city, or that of the farmer 
and laborer to provide food. Women, too, should be 
educated as well as men and should be given a chance to 
do whatever they were able to do. In this way harmony 
and order would prevail. People would be united in the 
service of the city. It was not the modern ideal of a 
democratic city, for Plato did not believe in education 
for all. Neither did he think that the great majority 
of common people should have anything to do with the 
government. Nevertheless it was a picture which ex- 
ercised a tremendous influence over the minds of men 
and is still full of suggestion for those who are hoping 
and planning for a better future. 

Sir Thomas More lived in the time of Henry VII 
and Henry VIII, when the "new learning," as it was 
called, was filling the minds of a few with great enthusi- 
asm. More studied Plato's work and applied it to his 
own day. He protested against the cruelty with which 
slight offenses against property were then punished. 
He urged it would be much better to make some pro- 
vision for preventing stealing than to use such severity 
in punishing thieves. " For great and horrible punish- 



138 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

ments be appointed for thieves, whereas much rather 
provision should have been made that there were some 
means whereby they might get their living." If it be 
said that there are trades and farming, he answers 
that because of the wars which cripple men and use up 
the wealth of the country, because of the great numbers 
of " gentlemen " who live in idleness and extort the 
last cent from their tenants, because of the luxury 
which calls for a great many needless servants, and 
finally because of the monopolies by which rich men 
oppress the poor, there is no fair chance for the common 
man. He would do away with class distinctions and 
have all citizens equal before the law. He would have 
religious liberty. King Utopus 

" made a decree that it should be lawful for every man to 
favor and follow what religion he would, and that he might 
do the best he could to bring other to his opinion so that 
he did it peaceably, gently, quietly and soberly, without 
hast and contentious rebuking and inveighing against other. 
. . . And this surely he thought a very unmeet and foolish 
thing, and a point of arrogant presumption, to compel all 
others by violence and threatings to agree to the same 
that thou believest to be true." 

In order to have men think of the common good, 
More desired to do away with private property and 
have people share their goods. Such a plea as the 
following must have stirred many to thought of a 
juster order: 

" For what justice is this, that a rich goldsmith, or an 
userer, or to be short, any of them which either do nothing 
at all, or else that which they do is such that it is not very 
necessary to the commonwealth, should have a pleasant and 
a wealthy living, either by idleness, or by unnecessary 
business; when in the meantime poor laborers, carters, iron- 



INFLUENCE OF IDEAS 139 

smiths, carpenters and ploughmen, by so great and con- 
tinual toil, that without it no commonwealth were able to 
continue and endure one year, should yet get so hard and 
poor a living, and live so wretched and miserable a life, 
that the state and condition of the laboring beasts may seem 
much better and wealthier." 

Again, about the time of our own Revolution, men in At the 
Europe also were thinking of a better day. Edmund close of 
Burke, who was our friend, had as a young man written 18th 

a powerful indictment of what he called artificial so- 
ciety in contrast with natural society. He claimed that 
the laws, although designed to protect the poor and 
the weak had really come to give the advantage to the 
rich because it had become so expensive a matter to 
carry on a suit. He claimed that those who labor 
most enjoy the fewest things and those who labor not 
at all have the greatest number of enjoyments. He 
held up a picture of two hundred thousand men in 
Great Britain employed in mines with poor food, 
wretched health, laboring at constant drudgery, and 
asked if this were not more shocking than slavery. 
Robert Burns, a farmer born in a cottage and growing 
up with the poor, had both a feeling for the common 
man and a genius to appeal to all men. The rank, he 
said, is but the guinea's stamp, " The man's the gowd 
(gold) for a' that." 

But it was when the great Revolution broke out in 
France that the men of letters were kindled to a general 
expression of the passion for liberty which this aroused 
in Western Europe. Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron, all 
expressed various aspects of this great movement. 
With one it was a feeling of brotherhood, with another 
the sympathy with the small nation struggling for po- 
litical freedom, with a third it was a desire to be free 



140 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

from the oppression of law. All helped to strengthen 
the foundations of freedom and democracy and to point 
toward the day which we still await 

" When man to man, the warld o'er 
Shall brithers be for a that." 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE NEW MEANING OF LIFE BROUGHT IN BY 
LIBERTY 

THE struggle for liberty was waged by men some- 
times to get something for themselves, sometimes 
to get something for all. But out of it came 
a great idea about life, namely the idea that every 
man should be both free and law-abiding. 

The great task of law and government had been to Free and 
control men and make them conform to certain rules, respon- 
Some of these rules were no doubt made in the interest slble 
of the king, and were oppressive; but most of them 
were made to preserve order, and to protect men in 
their rights. When the king and the state took the 
place of the old tribal customs, the lawyers taught 
that laws of society came from the king. But gradu- 
ally, as men gained the right to make their own laws, 
they began to feel a new reason for obedience. They 
felt that they were not so much obeying some one set 
over them as obeying themselves. And this made a 
new responsibility too. For if men made their own 
laws it was their duty to make good ones. They could 
not blame others for what was their own fault. 

It can readily be seen that something like this goes 
on with each one of us as we grow up. At first we 
obey the words and customs of our elders, just as men 
do in tribal life. Then we find various rules for con- 
duct which seem to have been set up by some one in 
authority. We must not meddle with others' prop- 

141 



142 BEGINNINGS OF COOPERATION 

erty, or the police and courts will interfere; we must 
obey certain rules of the school; we must keep our 
promises even if it is very inconvenient to do so; we 
must work when we'd rather not. 

But as we grow older we are more and more left to 
decide matters for ourselves. We have to reason things 
out and see why we cannot interfere with others' rights, 
and why we must not always do as we prefer. When 
we control ourselves by reason, instead of following 
the first impulse, when we remember that we are part 
of society and so must think of others as well as our- 
selves, then we are " responsible." That is, we respond 
to the demands of others; we respond to what is rea- 
sonable or " right." We do not try to evade or dodge 
or squirm out of an unpleasant task, or out of our 
obligations to others ; we stand up to them squarely. 
And we do it not because any one else is making us 
do it. We do it because somehow we recognize and feel 
that we ought to. 

Now just so far as we do this of our own accord 
we are free. We are not compelled by any one; we 
direct ourselves, just as free men make their own laws. 
Here then is one great idea about life which has come 
out of the long struggle first to establish order, then 
to secure liberty. 

And the second is that if freedom and responsibility 
are really just another name for acting conscientiously, 
then all men ought to be free and responsible. All men 
ought to have a chance to live a noble life. To help 
the cause of freedom, then, is not merely to gain a 
benefit for myself, it is part of the real business of 
living. 

The state began by setting up a king, and making 
sharp class lines between gentle and simple; it gave us 



NEW MEANING OF LIFE 143 

the idea of the gentleman. The towns taught the dig- 
nity of labor and the service of honest trade. The long 
struggle for liberty gave men an ideal of life as free 
and responsible — free, " I am the captain of my soul " ; 
responsible, for " no one liveth unto himself " ; we are 
members one of another. Such liberty and responsi- 
bility are two of the great factors in democracy. 



PART II 

LIBERTY, UNION, DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW 
WORLD 



CHAPTER XV 

NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 

THE first steps toward union, freedom, and democ- America 
racy had been taken, as we have seen, long s P ell s 
before America was settled or even discovered. ° p P° r ' 

tunity 
Progress along all these lines continued in Europe. 

Nevertheless the struggle for liberty in the Old World 
was hard and often discouraging. Beginning with the 
Pilgrims who came in the May-flower to Plymouth in 
1620, multitudes from all the countries of Europe 
came to America to find here a land of freedom, a land 
of opportunity. Sometimes it was religious freedom 
that they sought. This was the case with many of 
the first emigrants from England in the years 1620-40. 
Sometimes it was the opportunity to have land and 
homes of their own, with greater opportunity to work 
out their own lives. This seems to have brought many 
of the Scotch-Irish a century later. Sometimes it was 
political liberty that was most prominent, as with the 
Germans who came in 1848. Frequently it has been 
several motives combined. In the Old World the power 
of kings and nobility was tenacious ; the division be- 
tween gentry and common folk was firmly fixed and 
only rarely could a man of lower class break over this 
division. The land was nearly all owned by the gentry. 
Laws often favored the ruling class. Religion was 
controlled in many ways by the government. In Eng- 
land, after the time of Henry VIII, the king was head 
of the church. At the time when the early settlers 

147 



148 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Four 

factors 

in 

American 

life 



began to come to this country religious persecution 
was not uncommon. Edward Everett Hale in his poem 
on Columbus represents him as hearing a voice calling 
for a chance to make a new beginning : 

" ' Give me white paper ! 
This which you use is black and rough with smears 
Of sweat and grime and fraud and blood and tears, 
Crossed with the story of men's sins and fears, 
Of battle and of famine all these years 

When all God's children had forgot their birth, 

And drudged and fought and died like beasts of earth. 

" ' Give me white paper ! ' 
One storm-trained seaman listened to the word; 
What no man saw he saw; he heard what no man heard. 

In answer he compelled the sea 

To eager men to tell 

The secret she had kept so well! 
Left blood and guilt and tyranny behind, — 
Sailing still West the hidden shore to find; 

For all mankind that unstained scroll unfurled, 

Where God might write anew the story of the World." 

We purpose in this chapter to note briefly the new 
conditions that have made life in America in many 
ways freer and more democratic than life in the Old 
World. In later chapters we shall take up in succession 
what we may call the spirit of America and its con- 
tribution to human life. The four great aspects of this 
spirit and contribution are (1) Liberty, (£) Union, 
(3) Democracy, and (4) Free cooperation with other 
nations. 

The great facts which we notice in this chapter are 
(1) the kind or class of people who came to America, 
(£) the influence of free land, (3) the influence of the 
frontier, (4) the influence in more recent years of the 
Industrial Revolution. This last is not peculiar to 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 149 

America, but must be noticed in order to understand 
the recent problems of America. 

During the three hundred years since America was Who came 
first settled by white men many sorts of people have to 
come to its shores, but for our purpose the character erica - 
of those who came first is particularly important be- 
cause they did much to shape the institutions of the 
country, its government, its schools, its religion, its 
mode of life. Those who came later came very largely 
because they liked what these first settlers had done, 
and in most respects the later comers fitted into the 
system which they found when they arrived, although 
in some respects they certainly modified it, notably in 
such matters as the observance of Sunday. The early 
settlers were for the most part of the middle or lower 
class. This was particularly true in New England. 
There were, to be sure, a few landholders and gentry 
among the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but the great 
majority were not of this class. None of the nobility 
came to these colonies. Farther south there were in 
the Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina colonies 
members of the gentry. The Dutch also had some 
large estates, but with the exception of the coast region 
in the south the country came to be peopled more and 
more by those who were not well off in the Old World 
and sought a place here to better their fortunes. The 
great landholders of Europe, the lords who were al- 
ready in conditions of power, of wealth, had nothing 
to gain by coming here. They naturally stayed at 
home. 

We are not to think that people of the middle 
and lower classes were necessarily entirely different in 
their bodies and minds from people of the nobility. 



150 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

The fact is, however, as we have seen in earlier chapters, 
that when a conquering band of warriors invade a 
country they tend to make a distinct class and to 
reduce the other dwellers to a lower class. Then the 
children of the first class are brought up to look upon 
themselves as superior to others. They are constantly 
reminded of this distinction by their whole training 
and education. They follow a different kind of occupa- 
tion. They are either rulers or in the army or in the 
professions. They do not engage in manual labor. 
They own practically all the land and get their support 
largely through this ownership, while the others carry 
on farming and trading. The son of the farmer or 
trader expects to be a farmer or trader. He is edu- 
cated for this. Hence, although the children of the 
two classes may not be so different at birth, they come 
to be increasingly different as they grow up. In 
America, although a few of the gentry came over, and 
although in certain parts of the country they kept a 
certain amount of class feeling and class pride, they for 
the most part did not have any such complete control 
of land or government as to make a subject-class out 
of the rest of the people. So many of the other classes 
came and were enabled because of free land and the 
influence of the frontier to become prominent in all 
departments of life that the mixing in all kinds of ways 
soon began. All settlers went to the same church, to 
the same town meetings, families intermarried, and in 
course of time, when common schools were established, 
children went to the same school. 

Free In the Old World property in land was almost always 

land originally gained by what has been called the divine 

right of grab. The Celts seized upon the land of 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 151 

Britain and largely took it away from the previous 
dwellers. The Saxons drove off the Celts or made them 
laborers on the land. The Normans in turn claimed all 
the land of England by conquest. The Saxons were 
mostly reduced to the condition of villeins, who had 
certain rights as tenants but did not own the land they 
worked upon. The land in Great Britain has ever 
since been largely owned by the few rather than by the 
many. 

One of the most important features in the New World 
was that practically every colonist who settled in 
America either owned land from the beginning or soon 
came to own it. Today nearly half the population in 
the United States live in cities or large villages. But 
this is a recent condition which is setting new problems 
for democracy. In all the earlier years when America 
was shaping its ideas and its government, the people 
lived largely under rural conditions. The colonists 
were very largely farmers, and those who were not 
farmers usually owned at least their own homes. A 
group of settlers in a town near the coast would live 
there until their sons grew up and wished to set up 
their own homes. Then they would petition the authori- 
ties of the colony to survey a new tract and open it 
to settlers, so that the sons could own farms and 
homes. After the Revolution the public lands in the 
Middle West, and later the great tracts of prairie and 
upland still farther West, were open to settlers. Al- 
most any one who was willing to work and to endure 
the hardships of the pioneer could own a homestead. 
It required persistence and courage ; it meant going 
without many comforts of civilization; it meant loneli- 
ness, and often danger. Many city dwellers of today 
would prefer to rent a steam-heated, electric-lighted 



152 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

flat cared for by a janitor, close to street cars, the- 
aters, and offices, rather than to own a piece of land 
if they must chop their wood, build their fires, plow, 
sow, harvest, care for cattle and horses, make cheese 
and butter, clothing and candles. Two hundred, and 
even one hundred years ago, there was no such choice 
open. But the men and women did not shrink. They 
prized the independence and freedom that they gained 
by owning their own farms. They were willing to pay 
the price. They were made more sturdy and vigorous 
upholders of liberty in other ways because they were 
accustomed to rely upon themselves and to be inde- 
pendent owners of their own homes. 



The 

influence 
of the 
frontier 



Man has been making inventions for thousands of 
years. These make living easier and none of us would 
wish to go back to the days before there was machinery, 
before steam and electricity did the hard and exhaust- 
ing labor. We should not like to exchange our rail- 
roads for the ox team. Women would not choose to 
spin and weave all the linen of the household or to 
make the garments worn by themselves and their fami- 
lies. We should not wish to give up the daily news- 
paper, the frequent mails, the telegraph and telephone. 
Yet can we say that in putting all these inventions to 
work for us we have not lost something, although we 
may have gained a great deal? We have gained in 
wealth and comfort, but this wealth and comfort have 
come very unevenly to different classes. We no longer 
all live in practically the same kind of houses and do 
the same kind of work. It was the evil of the conquest 
by the king and his band of warriors that classes were 
formed which had different occupations. The fighter 
and ruler looked down upon the manual worker. At 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 153 

the present time our differences in wealth and education 
have something of the same effect in making different 
classes. The man who is manager, or even the clerk 
who works in the office, is not in quite the same class 
with the man who works with his hands, although it 
may be the latter is earning a higher wage. The girl 
who works in a store is likely to look down upon the 
girl who does domestic work. In the frontier conditions 
of early life in America such differences of occupation 
were small. Practically the whole people were farmers. 
All men and all women worked with their hands. The 
young woman who went to another family to help with 
the work was not regarded as necessarily inferior in 
social standing to the family whom she helped. The 
man who could fell his tree in the most workmanlike 
fashion or plow the straightest furrow, who was the 
best shot with his rifle or wisest in the lore of the 
forest, was respected by his fellows without regard to 
ancestry. Pews in the meeting-house, to be sure, were 
allotted to men in the order of their importance in the 
community, but this was not firmly fixed, and in any 
case the men all met together within the same meeting- 
house. Town meetings and the various gatherings for 
" raising " houses and barns, harvesting crops, and 
other occasions of cooperation tended toward democ- 
racy. Those who remained in the cities on the coast 
clung to the Old World distinctions far more than those 
who pushed on in successive migrations into the wilder- 
ness. The frontier has been a continual school of 
democracy in American life. 

America in colonial days and for the first years after The 
the Revolutionary War was a nation of farms. But Industrial 
about the time of the Revolution by which the United Revolution 



154 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



States came into existence as an independent nation 
another great change was in progress which was so 
important that it, too, is called a revolution — the In- 
dustrial Revolution. This was in some ways favorable 
to the progress of liberty, union, and democracy; at 
the same time, however, it brought new obstacles and 
occasioned new struggles. The Civil War in the United 
States of 1861-65 and the great World War of 1914 
grew in large part out of the new forces which the 
Industrial Revolution introduced into human life. To 
understand the problems of American life we must see 
briefly what the Industrial Revolution was and how it 
has affected us. 

The Industrial Revolution had a great many dif- 
ferent aspects. Some of the changes came gradually, 
some more suddenly. Some had to do with the way in 
which things were made ; others had to do with the way 
in which business was carried on. Some aspects came 
directly from new inventions that gave men new power 
over nature; others came from the new kinds of organ- 
ization and cooperation and the new classes in society 
that were formed by the revolution. 

As regards the revolution in the way of making 
things, or manufacture, we may notice five points. 

(1) First it was a change from tools to machines. 
Up to this time men had made many tools. The needle, 
the ax, the saw, the hammer, the knife, are tools. But 
there were few machines. A sewing machine when com- 
pared with a needle is a good illustration of the dif- 
ference. With the needle the sewer can draw the 
thread rapidly through the cloth, but every individual 
stitch is done as a distinct movement which requires 
direction by the thought of the one who uses the tool. 
The sewing machine drives the needle up and down in 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 155 

precisely the same way so that there is no need of 
making any new adjustment for each stitch. There is 
nothing then to prevent it from being driven in an 
automatic or, as we sometimes say, mechanical way as 
fast as we can make it go. The process of making 
cloth was the first for which new machines were in- 
vented. The three main parts of this process were 
carding the wool to make the fibers all lie in the same 
direction, spinning or twisting the fibers into a strong 
thread, and finally weaving the threads into cloth. In- 
ventions of weaving, spinning, and carding machines 
were made very nearly at the same time. 

(2) These machines were heavy and hard to drive From 

by human strength. Water power had long been used man-power 
for such work as grinding grain, but water power is eam 

not to be had everywhere. Fortunately the great in- 
vention of the steam engine had been made and about 
this same time was brought so far toward perfection 
that it could be used for driving the new machines. 
Here, then, were two great kinds of discoveries — ma- 
chinery and steam power — that could be combined. 
They multiplied tremendously the ability of man to 
make cloth. Later on they were extended to all kinds 
of manufactures. Soon they were applied to ships, 
which thus became steamboats, and to railways. 
Both of these latter uses were extremely important in 
America, for the steamboats made trade with Europe 
far more convenient and rapid, while the 'railways 
opened up the great Middle West and Far West and 
made it possible for the settlers there to sell their 
grain and cattle and thus to benefit both the Old World 
and themselves. 

(3) The Industrial Revolution was a change from 
home work to factory work. For the most part, weav- 



156 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

ing and other industries were carried on in homes, and 
when machines which required water or steam power 
were invented it was necessary to place these in fac- 
From tories. The workers must leave home for their day's 

home to work. In a factory town or city today the great 
factory multitude of men and a very large number of women 
are at home only for the night with a little space at 
the beginning and end of the day. This has had very 
important effects upon health and upon family and so- 
cial life. At first factories were very likely to be poorly 
ventilated and not any too well lighted. In many 
cases dust and poisonous gases endangered health. In 
recent years these conditions have been improved so 
that the factory is now, except for its noise, a more 
healthful place for work than home would be. On 
the other hand, this change from home to factory has 
made a new problem in regard to children. They can 
no longer learn from their parents the various crafts 
and trades. This has thrown a new burden upon the 
school. 
Division (4) A further aspect of the Industrial Revolution is 

of labor the division of labor. Under the old system of hand 
work a shoemaker made a whole shoe. Now the making 
of the shoe is divided between something over eighty 
men. The housewife usually knew how to do all proc- 
esses of making cloth from carding and dyeing on 
through spinning and weaving, and even cutting and 
making garments. This work today is divided among 
a great many, each of whom does some very small part. 
Each one becomes very expert and rapid in his part 
of the work but no one knows as much about a whole 
process as the old-time craftsman. On the other hand, 
the new system is far more efficient in turning out a 
great quantity of goods. 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 157 

(5) Finally it has brought men and women together 
to work in groups. In some factories thousands of 
men work in making steel or cloth or preparing food. Bringing 
Great numbers of them who do the same kind of work workers 
thus come to know each other. They are very likely oge er 
to organize in unions. From having the same work 
and wages and living in the same kind of houses and 
in the same neighborhood they come to sympathize 
with each other and thus can cooperate much more 
readily than could the workers who worked in scat- 
tered homes. We thus have the basis for a new 
class. 

The five points which we have just stated concern Capitalism 
especially the changes in the way of making and trans- 
porting articles which the Industrial Revolution 
brought about. Side by side with these changes another 
great change was going on in the method of managing 
and financing business. The system under which busi- 
ness is now carried on is called Capitalism. It involves 
a new power in the world which is in many ways 
greater than the older political power which we have 
studied in the bands of warriors and the state. It is 
a power based upon wealth. Like the power of the 
king and the band of warriors, it is largely the result 
of union. But in this case, instead of a union of 
soldiers, it is a union of men and money, of buildings 
and machines. The leaders have sometimes been called 
" captains of industry." The great problems of the 
present time have, many of them, come from the con- 
flict between this new power of united wealth and the 
older political power which we call the state or the 
nation. While we cannot pretend to make any thor- 
ough study of this new power we can see how it has 



158 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

arisen, what its usefulness is, and what are some of 
the dangers that go along with this power. 
What is Capital is as old as tools. When a savage took some 

capital? f hi s time to make a stock of arrow heads he was 
accumulating capital : he was putting work and time not 
directly into food but into tools by which to get a 
larger supply of food than he could get without them. 
Taming a horse or an ox to do work was accumulating 
capital. Getting an education is sometimes spoken of 
as accumulating capital, for the education will help one 
to earn a larger income than he could earn if he did 
not take time to study. In the Middle Ages and down 
to the time of the Industrial Revolution, the weaver 
who had a loom had so much capital. The farmer who 
owned cattle, horses, tools, had this much capital. But 
to build a large factory and stock it with machinery, 
and to buy the wool or cotton needed would evidently 
call for more capital than was required before the 
invention of the machine. It did not need very much 
capital in the old days for a man to start a stage route 
and carry passengers, but to build a railroad and equip 
it required a large expenditure which must be met 
before the railroad could be useful. After the factory 
is once built or the railroad is ready, it is, of course, 
enormously more efficient, but the construction of it 
demands that much more time and work be put into 
tools or machinery. Practically all the iron that is 
mined is made into machines and tools and represents, 
therefore, capital, by which we may get a better living. 
We get some idea of how our capital is increasing if 
we see how fast the amount of iron used is increasing. 
In 1800 the world produced 825,000 tons; in 1870, 
11,900,000 tons; in 1905, 53,700,000 tons; in 1911, 
134,150,000 tons. There are perhaps between three 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 159 

and four times as many people now in Europe and 
America as there were one hundred years ago, but more 
than sixty times as much iron is used. 

The increased use of gold and silver has been very Money as 
convenient in this increase of capital. In the early capital 
days a man could not conveniently pile up a great 
stock of wheat nor could he conveniently accumulate 
great numbers of tools. If, however, he could exchange 
his surplus for gold or silver, he could have his accumu- 
lation in a convenient form. Gold and silver could be 
used to pay workmen or to buy raw materials. A man 
who could accumulate a large amount of gold with 
which he could employ men to build or to weave or to 
transport goods could, in this way, unite their energies 
and their strength just as the king could unite the 
energies of the men under his command. 

But in recent times business men not only use money The use of 
and in this way get the advantage of combining the credit 
strength of many; they use credit. If I wish to build 
a factory and do not have the money with which to 
buy lumber and pay workmen, I can still do it provided 
the man who has lumber to sell and the workmen who 
have labor to sell will wait for their pay until the fac- 
tory is running. Of course, they cannot do this unless 
they themselves have at least a supply of food and 
clothing sufficient to last until my factory is doing busi- 
ness. Very likely the workmen may not have this. There 
is still another way out of the difficulty. If my neighbor, 
or some one else who knows me, has a supply of food, 
or, what is the same thing, of money, which he will loan 
me, I can then pay the workmen and build the factory. 
The great factories and railways and businesses of 
today are very largely carried on by some form of 
credit. Men make plans for building automobiles or 



as owner 

and 

manager 



160 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

some other article for which they believe there will be 
a demand. They go to banks or other sources and 
borrow money or arrange for credit. In this way, the 
earning power of an invention or of a large number of 
men is organized, or, as we may say, capitalized. The 
capital required to build a great steel plant is between 
twenty and thirty million dollars. The United States 
Steel Company, which owns several mills and a great 
amount of iron ore, was capitalized at about a billion 
dollars. The great railways have capitals of hundreds 
of millions. 
The In the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution a 

corporation factory might be built by one man; a small steamship 
or even a short railway might be owned by one indi- 
vidual; but as larger and larger factories were built, 
as railroads connecting distant points and costing vast 
sums were planned, it was soon found to be far safer 
and more convenient for many persons to unite and 
form a corporation to own and manage such a great 
plant. People in early times had sometimes united in 
partnership. But in a partnership, if the business 
should not be successful, each partner would usually 
be liable for all the debts. This would make partner- 
ship risky. The corporation is a very convenient plan 
for limiting the amount to which any single member 
can be held responsible. If a thousand men subscribe 
a thousand dollars apiece to form a million-dollar 
corporation, then no one is liable for more than a 
thousand dollars. If one member of the corporation 
dies, his share can be sold to some one else without 
difficulty and the corporation itself can continue per- 
manently carrying on the business. Practically all 
our railways and great businesses are now managed in 
this way. In 1889, although there were more establish- 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 161 

ments owned by individuals than by corporations, the 
corporations produced sixty-five per cent, of the prod- 
uct. In 1909 corporations produced seventy-nine per 
cent, of our manufactures, so that nearly four-fifths 
of the business of the country was in this latter year 
done by corporations. This corporation plan is un- 
doubtedly advantageous or it would not have had such 
an extraordinary growth. It has, however, certain 
dangers which are very easy to see. A corporation 
enables a great number of people, sometimes many 
thousands, to unite their savings in a profitable busi- 
ness. But just because there are so many, no one of 
them has very much responsibility. They elect di- 
rectors, but the directors cannot consult all the stock- 
holders, and many things may be done by them which 
the stockholders would not approve. Many of the 
conflicts between the corporations and workmen have 
arisen because the real owners of the property did not 
know the workmen. To work for a corporation is 
often said to be like working for a machine. 

Another danger in the corporation is that it is 
formed for one single purpose; that is, for profits. 
A man may wish to make money, but he is likely also 
to be a neighbor, a friend, a citizen, and all these 
relations tend to make him kind, reliable, and public- 
spirited. The corporation may be reliable, for it can 
be sued in court if it does not pay its debts or carry 
out its promises. But no one expects a corporation 
to be very considerate of people beyond what is re- 
quired by law, and no one expects the corporation to 
be public-spirited in the same sense in which we may 
expect this of a citizen. Of course, the managers of 
corporations may themselves be considerate and public- 
spirited. In many cases, they may find it to be good 



162 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

business policy so to conduct the corporation as to 
serve the public and make friends. But the primary 
duty of the managers has usually been regarded as 
that of so conducting the business as to secure profits 
for the stockholders. This has frequently brought 
such great corporations as the railroads into conflict 
with the public, and now the courts hold that certain 
corporations, which are, as they say, " affected with 
a public interest," must consider their duties to the 
public as well as their duties to their stockholders. 
In many cases, indeed, the duty to the public is held 
to be superior. 



The 

Industrial 
Revolution 
sets new 
problems 

(1) It 
created a 
new 
power 



We ask now how these great changes in the way 
of making and transporting goods and carrying on 
business affect liberty, union, and democracy. 

First of all, they have set up a new power in the 
world. A thousand years ago, if you had come into 
any town or country of Europe, you would have found 
two sorts of men who were powerful. One was the 
warriors with the king at their head. They owned 
the land, for the most part. The other was the 
leaders of the church. The beautiful and massive 
cathedrals which men built during the Middle Ages 
show how important a power the church was. Men 
were then much poorer than today and lived in very 
small and uncomfortable houses, but they built won- 
derful churches and cloisters; the church itself was a 
well-organized institution, and the heads of the church 
had power greater in some respects than the heads of 
the armies and states. Today, if you were asked 
who were the most powerful men in the country, you 
would perhaps name the President of the United States, 
the judges of the Supreme Court, and a very few 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 163 

political leaders ; you might, perhaps, think of some 
church leaders who are prominent; but you would be 
very certain to name some of the wealthy men of the 
country, the directors of the great railways, banks, 
insurance companies, and manufacturing establishments. 
The great power of these men is due, as we have al- 
ready said, to the fact that they are leaders of a new 
kind of union or cooperation — cooperation in industry 
and business as contrasted with military or church 
cooperation. This new power is in some respects very 
favorable to liberty and democracy. It gives more 
chances to boys to develop their abilities and to do 
the kinds of things that they like. For, of course, not 
every boy in former times could make a brilliant 
soldier, even if he liked fighting. This power is also 
more peaceful in its methods than the old military 
power, even if it is often very harsh in its competition. 
It is probably an advantage also to have more than 
one or two kinds of power. It will be safer for democ- 
racy and for the common man than if there is only 
one. On the other hand, this new power of wealth has 
made great problems for liberty and democracy. Just 
as the king at first kept in his own hands the right to 
say how everything should be done, and was very 
indignant if any of his subjects questioned his au- 
thority, so some of the captains of industry have 
wished to keep this power entirely in their own hands 
and have not been willing to share it or to admit that 
the public has any right to question the way in which 
they shall use it. This has led to many conflicts be- 
tween the capitalists and the people acting through 
legislatures and courts. 

When cloth and shoes and other articles were made 
by the worker in his own house, he owned his tools. 



164 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



(2) It 
made new 
class 
divisions 



He was, thus, in a small way, a capitalist himself, just 
as the farmer who owns his farm and his cattle is both 
a capitalist and a worker. But when the invention of 
machines and of steam power brought in factories, it 
was clear that most men could not own factories. It 
took a great deal of money to build and equip a factory. 
Almost at once it came about that some men built 
and managed factories while others worked in them for 
wages. This made a new class division. We now com- 
monly speak of employers and employees, or capitalists 
and wage-earners. The first great influence of the In- 
dustrial Revolution in America in this respect was not 
in the factories but in the fields which grew cotton for 
the factories. In the early history of the country, 
there had been a few slaves, but they were mainly for 
house-servants or laborers on small plantations. The 
great demand for cotton after the invention of the new 
machinery for carding, spinning, and weaving made it 
very profitable to raise great fields of cotton in the 
South. This made the use of slaves as farm laborers 
far more profitable than it had been before. If it had 
not been for this new demand, it seems very likely that 
the slaves would have been gradually freed without 
much opposition, for many of the prominent men of 
the South were opposed to slavery. We may fairly say 
that the Civil War, therefore, was in large measure 
due to the Industrial Revolution. 

The present problems of democracy and liberty which 
are caused by this division between employers and em- 
ployees are brought before us almost every day. Con- 
flicts over wages are, of course, to be expected, but 
sometimes we are led to fear that there is bitterness 
between different classes much greater than would be 
caused by a difference of opinion about wages. It is 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 165 

a difference that goes deeper. It comes from the fact 
that the two classes do such different things that they 
do not understand each other. The working people 
tend machines and cannot help being affected to some 
degree by the nature and environment of machine work. 
The other class work in offices, they buy and sell, 
they wear different clothes, and think about different 
things. 

This difference in point of view which often makes 
it hard for one class to understand the other is in- 
creased by the way in which people live in cities. Our 
modern cities are also a product of the Industrial 
Revolution. They are built up largely around fac- 
tories or railway centers, or near harbors. The work- 
men live near the factory. The business men live in 
districts out away from the smoke and noise. The 
children do not attend the same schools. The grown 
people do not often see each other. Neither half knows 
how the other lives. They might as well be a thousand 
miles apart. 

Still another division in our country has been brought 
about partly by the Industrial Revolution. This is 
the division caused by immigration. At the beginning 
we all spoke one language and came from Great Britain 
and Ireland with very few exceptions. Today we are 
a multitude of races, and we speak and read many 
languages. In the city of Chicago alone over forty 
different languages are spoken and in most of these 
languages newspapers are printed. The people of 
many of these nationalities naturally tend to live in 
large groups, so that in the great cities there are really 
separate sub-cities. A Polish city, a German city, a 
Bohemian city, a Jewish city, an Italian city, and 
many others may be found in the great cities of the 



ism 



166 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

country. Here is another problem for liberty and 
democracy. 
(3) It has A nation is a group of people with unity of race 
promoted or tradition or feeling which enables them to live to- 
i^ ena gether under a common government. An empire usually 
means a number of races, peoples, and perhaps nations, 
under a single government. Frequently in modern 
times, it means that a number of rather less highly 
civilized people are ruled by a central power which 
is more highly civilized. The great example of an 
empire is the British Empire. This began with the 
British islands; it grew by the colonies in America, in 
Australia, in South Africa, but it grew also by the 
conquest of India and Egypt and many smaller coun- 
tries. In almost all cases there was first some 
trade between England and these other countries, 
which was followed by some method of govern- 
ment designed to protect the traders in their dealings 
with the natives. The Industrial Revolution began in 
England and made it possible to manufacture great 
quantities of cloth and other articles more cheaply 
than before. It was natural to attempt to trade with 
peoples all over the world in order to sell them these 
new goods, and in this way country after country was 
added to the British Empire. The Dutch, in a similar 
way, built up an empire over the islands of the East 
Indies. These empires began before the Industrial 
Revolution, but in the nineteenth century the British 
Empire developed very rapidly, and during the latter 
part of the century the French and German empires 
also showed rapid expansion. Rivalry between these 
different empires and between the Balkan states has 
been a great feature in bringing on the world war. 
But even before this it made one great problem of 



NEW FORCES AND NEW TASKS 167 

liberty and democracy. For since, in these great em- 
pires, certain parts were not of the same language or 
as highly civilized as other parts, the question became 
more and more serious, Should they be kept under the 
government of the more highly civilized power or should 
they be allowed to govern themselves? Democracy 
says that all governments derive their just powers from 
the consent of the governed. How can this be recon- 
ciled with imperialism ? The United States has had to 
face that problem in the case of the Philippine Islands, 
but it is going to be compelled to consider it also in 
world affairs, if the United States is to be drawn more 
and more into the great problems of world peace and 
world cooperation. 



T 



CHAPTER XVI 

LIBERTY 

HE new nation which our fathers brought forth 
upon this continent was conceived in liberty. 
And this was natural, for it was the love of lib- 
erty in various forms which brought many of the 
original colonists to America. 
The Some came to seek religious freedom. Of those who 

Pilgrims came to Plymouth after first fleeing to Holland, Brad- 
ford writes: 

They could not long continue in any peaceable condi- 
tion, but were hunted and persecuted on every side, so as 
their former afflictions were but as fleabitings in comparison 
of these which now came upon them. For some were 
taken and clapt up in prison, others had their houses 
besett and watcht night and day, and hardly escaped their 
hands; and y e most were faine to flye and leave their 
howses and* habitations, and the meanes of their livelehood. 

Seeing themselves thus molested, and that ther was no 
hope of their continuance ther, by a joynte consente they 
resolved to goe into y e Low Countries, where they heard 
was freedom of religion for all men. 

Other Others of the colonists came largely to find a better 

colonists opportunity than the Old World afforded them. They 
did not think especially about civil or political liberty, 
nor in fact about government at all. But when they 
found themselves in a wilderness, thousands of miles 
from the home country, they were soon forced to settle 
many matters for themselves. 

168 



LIBERTY 169 

They had to defend themselves against Indians. 
They had to portion out new lands, build meeting- 
houses, and keep order. They felt in a sense more inde- 
pendent than they had been in England. But they 
considered themselves to be still Englishmen and to have 
all the rights of Englishmen. When the early charters 
were taken away from certain of the colonies, protests 
were made; but it was the Stamp Tax which called 
out united resistance and brought out a statement of 
some of the important rights. The case was very much 
like that of a boy who goes a thousand miles from home. 
He becomes used to managing his own affairs. Per- 
haps he has been in the habit of sending home part of 
his earnings from time to time. If now, all of a 
sudden, he should receive a letter informing him that 
he must send his father a fixed sum, and that a col- 
lector would call upon him for it, and arrest him if 
he should not pay at once, he would very likely be 
angry and refuse to pay. 

Something of the sort seems to have stirred the The 
Americans when the Stamp Tax was suddenly imposed, undoubted 
They assembled at Albany and, while professing respect " g s ° 
for the king and the Parliament, declared: 



English- 
men 



" That his majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are 
entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his 
natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 

" That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a 
people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no 
taxes should be imposed upon them but with their own 
consent, given personally or by their representatives. 

" That the people of these colonies are not, and from 
their local circumstances, cannot be represented in the 
House of Commons in Great Britain. 

" That the only representatives of the people of these 
colonies are persons chosen therein by themselves; and 



170 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally 
imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures. 

" That all supplies to the crown, being free gifts of the 
people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the princi- 
ples and spirit of the British constitution for the people 
of Great Britain to grant to his majesty the property of 
the colonists. 

" That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right 
of every British subject of these colonies." (Declaration 
of Rights and Grievances of the Colonists in America.) 

The reason why they insisted on granting aids 
through their own bodies instead of having them fixed 
by Parliament is well put by Benjamin Franklin: 

" Their opinion is, that when aids to the crown are 
wanted, they are to be asked of the several assemblies 
according to the old established usage, who will, as they 
always have done, grant them freely. . . . The granting 
aids to the crown is the only means they have of recom- 
mending themselves to their Sovreign, and they think it 
extremely hard and unjust, that a body of men, in which 
they have no representatives should make a merit to itself 
of giving and granting what is not its own, but theirs, 
and deprive them of a right they esteem of the utmost 
value and importance, as it is the security of all their other 
rights." 

James Otis urges that the right " to be free from all 
taxes but what he consents to in person or by his 
representative is part of the common law, part of a 
British subject's birthright." 
Natural So far it was the rights of Englishmen, of British 

rights subjects, on which the Americans stood. But ten years 

later, when the Revolution began, a deeper foundation 
was sought for rights and liberty. These men of '76 
found it in the doctrine of natural rights which had 
been laid down by Locke and Blackstone in England, 



LIBERTY 171 

and by Rousseau in France. To say that men had 
certain rights by nature, even before there was any 
government, seemed to give a stronger foundation for 
liberty. To say that God had created men equal, and 
had endowed them with rights, made the foundation 
still stronger and more sacred. Both these ways of 
stating the doctrine are found in declarations of 
rights made during the Revolution. 

The Virginia Declaration of Rights adopted June 2, 
1776, declares : 

" That all men are by nature equally free and inde- 
pendent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when 
they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any com- 
pact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely the enjoyment 
of life and liberty with the means of acquiring and possess- 
ing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and 
safety." 

This was to emphasize the " natural " character of 
rights. The great Declaration of Independence, 
adopted July 4, 1776, takes the second way of state- 
ment: 

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator 
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are 
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." 

These declarations then go on to give their view of Govern- 

government. Governments are instituted " to secure ments 

these rights," " deriving their just powers from the are to 

consent of the governed." The Virginia Declaration r^ts 
says : 

" That all power is vested in, and consequently derived 
from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and 
servants, and at all times amenable to them." 



172 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

As we have seen, the British government did not 
actually begin in this way. It began with the strong 
arm of the king and his warriors. And even if we go 
back as far as records carry us we do not find any 
state of nature in which men had such complete rights. 
So far as England, at least, was concerned, these rights 
had been gained step by step. But the men of '76 
were not really trying to give a history. They were 
trying to say in the strongest way possible that men 
ought to be free, that governments ought to be for the 
people, and not for their own advantage, and that they 
ought to be responsible to the people and controlled by 
law. 
The What were the specific kinds of rights which were 

specific claimed by those who fought the Revolutionary War? 
"?;Jli They were very largely the " civil rights " with which 
we have already become familiar in Chapter XL 
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are 
the three rights which the Great Declaration sets first; 
the Virginia Declaration adds " the means of acquiring 
and possessing property." When we go on further in 
the Virginia Declaration we find several more definite 
claims which we may regard as the " platform of 1776." 
The more important may be grouped under : 

(1) The Government. All power is in the people, 
the magistrates are trustees. If a government does not 
act for the common benefit, the majority has a right 
to reform or abolish it. So far we have the views of 
Milton and Locke. But now we meet a new point. 
" The legislative, executive, and judicial powers should 
be separate and distinct " ; their members should at 
fixed periods retire to private life, and frequent elec- 
tions should be held. 

(2) Political rights. All should have the right of 



claimed 



LIBERTY 173 

suffrage who have " evidence of permanent common 
interest with, and attachment to the community." 

(3) Civil rights — Property. Men cannot be taxed 
or deprived of their property for public uses without 
their own consent or that of their representatives. 

(4) Civil rights of those accused of crimes. "A 
man hath a right to know the cause of his prosecution, 
to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call 
for evidence in his favor, to have a speedy trial by an 
impartial jury, . . . nor can be compelled to give 
evidence against himself ; " and no man can " be de- 
prived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or 
the judgment of his peers." 

" Excessive bail ought not to be required, nor ex- 
cessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punish- 
ments inflicted." 

" General warrants ... to search . . . places or 
to seize any person or persons not named ..." without 
evidence of actual facts or offenses committed are op- 
pressive. 

(5) Civil Rights in Private Cases. "In contro- 
versies respecting property and in suits between man 
and man, the ancient trial by jury of twelve men is 
preferable. ..." 

(6) Civil Rights. "Freedom of the press is one of 
the great bulwarks of liberty." 

(7) Religious liberty. "... All men are equally 
entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the 
dictates of conscience. ..." 

The cause of liberty in all these various forms was 
then the cause for which men were ready to fight, and 
if need be, to die. Some men of those days doubtless 
had mixed motives. Some may have believed they would 
gain financially by independence. Some may have 



174 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

fought because they liked the excitement, or to gratify 
a grudge against the tories. But for most it was not 
a selfish or an exciting experience. It was taking a 
desperate chance for a cause that they believed in. If 
we can look back and bring before us vividly the situa- 
tion which the men gathered in Philadelphia on that 
4th of July faced; if we can picture the terrible odds 
against success, the certain penalties of failure, the 
inevitable hardships, we begin to realize faintly how 
much was implied in the concluding words of the Great 
Declaration : 

" And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm 
reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutu- 
ally pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our 
sacred Honour." 



The 

meaning 
of Liberty 
was 

freedom 
from 

oppression 
by 

govern- 
ment 



The essential meaning of Liberty in the principles 
of '76 was evidently freedom from oppression by the 
government. There is not a word in them about op- 
pression of one class by another. There is not a word 
about burdens of poverty or unfair contracts. Men 
felt that if the government would let them alone they 
could themselves get a living and pursue happiness. It 
was government that they were afraid of. They wanted 
to have a government that could not, if it wished, treat 
any of its subjects unjustly. So they would have it 
limited by law. To prevent it from being too strong 
they would divide it into three separate powers, and 
make each a sort of check upon the others. The best 
place to study this plan will be when we take up the 
meaning of the Constitution. We call attention now 
to the fact that it was incorporated in the Virginia 
Declaration of 1776. 



CHAPTER XVII 

DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENT PROBLEMS OF 
LIBERTY 

THE principles which were expressed and fought Amend- 
for in 1776 have remained as an important part merits to 
of the American spirit ever since. When the . . n " 
Constitution under which our national government was aa bill 
reorganized in 1789 was first framed, many of the f rights 
rights noted in the Declaration of Independence were 
not mentioned. It was provided that the writ of habeas 
corpus " shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases 
of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety may require 
it"; and, further, that "The Trial of all Crimes, 
except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by jury." 
But the other rights expressed in the Virginia Declara- 
tion are not explicitly mentioned. Many were fearful 
that the new government might be tyrannical if no 
provision was made concerning the rights for which 
the war had been fought. Thomas Jefferson wrote, 
" The absence of expressed declaration insuring free- 
dom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the 
person under the uninterrupted protection of the 
habeas corpus, and trial by jury in Civil as well as 
Criminal cases, excited my jealousy; and the re- 
eligibility of the President for life, I quite disapprove." 
This feeling expressed by Jefferson was so general 
that ten amendments were adopted in the very first 
year, embodying essentially those rights which Eng- 
lishmen had stated in the Petition of Right presented 

175 



176 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

to Charles I in 1628, and again in the Bill of Rights 
drawn up by the House of Commons in 1689. They 
have a large place in our legal system. 

It was because liberty to the men of '76 meant civil 
and political liberty that when they wrote " All men 
are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among 
these are life, liberty," it never occurred to them that 
this excluded slavery. It is a good illustration of 
what so often happens, namely, that we may hold views 
that are really inconsistent without noticing the fact. 
Yet almost as soon as the war was over Congress 
passed the famous ordinance of 1787 for the govern- 
ment of the territory northwest of the Ohio River, 
which provided 

" Article the sixth. There shall be neither slavery nor 
involuntary servitude in the said territory otherwise than 
in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
been duly convicted." 

and the astonishing thing is that this provision was 
passed without any opposition from the Southern 
States, although when the vote was taken there were 
four Northern and four Southern States present. Had 
it not been for the great development of cotton planta- 
tions it is quite possible that emancipation of negroes 
throughout the South might have followed peacefully 
as it did in the Northern States, but with the great 
demand for cotton that followed the Industrial Revo- 
lution slavery became so important to the wealth of 
the South that it required the terrible struggle of 
civil war to decide that liberty should belong to all 
within the nation. 

Oppression by the government was what the men 



education 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF LIBERTY 177 

of '76 feared most. But it was not long before they 
began to see that fighting is not the most important 
way of securing freedom. A man who is ignorant is Liberty 
not free. He does not know how to protect himself. ^7 
He does not know how to take advantage of oppor- 
tunities. He is easily deceived. We have seen how 
the Peasants' Revolt in England and the similar revolt 
in Germany failed largely because of the ignorance of 
the peasants. The colonists had had schools of various 
kinds, and in spite of their poverty had founded col- 
leges. But these latter were chiefly intended for edu- 
cating ministers. The ordinance of 1787, however, had 
a provision almost as significant as its article pro- 
hibiting slavery. 

" Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to 
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools 
and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." 

In accordance with the spirit of this provision, a 
generous portion of all the public lands in the North- 
western States was set apart for the support of schools 
and universities. Usually when a new township was 
laid out, six miles square and including thirty-six sec- 
tions, two sections were set apart as school sections. 
On this foundation great school systems have been 
built up, in which tuition is free from the elementary 
school to the university. Their purpose has been well 
stated by President Angell of the University of Mich- 
igan : ' ' It has been my aim that every child in the 
state might see from his home a path open before him 
to the University." 

In the East, schools were established more largely 
by private contributions, but in many cases the states 
gave aid. In the early part of the nineteenth century 



178 



DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



the academy was a favorite type of school and the 
thought of education as a means of preserving liberty 
was prominent. In one such academy, founded in 
1804, the application for a charter reads: 



Liberation 

from 

disease 



" Considering the right condition of youths as the greatest 
security of free states, and the only means by which their 
independence can be maintained in purity, and there being 
no academical institution within thirty miles of this place, 
they believe that it would be of public utility to have an 
academy erected in the town of Monson." 

In the case of education, as in so many other in- 
stances, liberty was at first sought for a part of the 
community. Girls were not at first admitted to gram- 
mar schools. In one case they were allowed to sit on 
the steps. The writer's grandmother was refused per- 
mission to attend school because in the judgment, of 
the clergyman who conducted the school " the female 
mind is not capable of understanding grammar." 

The academies, however, were mainly co-educational; 
and in the West co-education has been the rule in ele- 
mentary and high schools. Opportunities for higher 
education for women have now been provided in all 
parts of the country, so that we may properly say 
free education is a part of the American idea. 

In a still larger sense education is necessary for 
freedom; only recently has this come to be realized. 
With the rapid growth of natural science and of inven- 
tion it has become evident that freedom from disease, 
freedom from poverty, freedom from fears of many 
kinds all depend upon education. People die from many 
diseases which are now known to be entirely unneces- 
sary. Smallpox, which used to be a dreadful scourge, 
attacking nearly half the people of the country and 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF LIBERTY 179 

killing great numbers of them, has now been almost 
completely banished. Tuberculosis is kept alive by 
ignorance of people and might be banished as well. 
We have learned how to control many of the diseases 
which threaten the lives of babies. The length of 
human life has been doubled in the last three and a 
half centuries. But, whereas during the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries, the increase was about four 
years per century, during the first half of the nine- 
teenth century it rose in Europe to the rate of nine 
years per century, and during the latter half of the 
nineteenth century to the rate of about seventeen years 
per century. In Germany, where medical and sanitary 
science has reached very high development, the rate 
of increase during the last period was twenty-seven 
years per century. 

It is estimated that at any time in the United States 
about three million persons are seriously ill and that 
fully half of this illness is preventable. Some of it is 
due to the ignorance of the victim; he does not know 
how to take care of himself. Much of it exists because 
no one can protect himself against the ignorance of 
others. If persons who have contagious diseases are 
ignorant or careless, they convey diseases to us, no 
matter how careful we may be. Much more exists 
because of the conditions Under which people now 
work. If a workshop is unhealthful, if there is dust in 
the air, or lead in the materials that the worker han- 
dles, he may not be able to protect himself from dis- 
ease. Such cases as this call for help from society as 
a whole. All of them call for education. 

The great issues of freedom at present are not the 
same as those of a hundred years ago. We are not 
now afraid that the government will tyrannize over us. 



of 
liberty 



180 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

There is, to be sure, always a danger that the majority 
may for a time forget the rights of the minority. We 
Present shall see in the chapter on Union how our system of 
problems government attempts to prevent this. But after all, 
our chief difficulty at present seems to be entirely the 
opposite. The majority find it very difficult to do 
things which they really want to do. In business the 
problem of freedom has taken the form of a conflict 
between small business men and large corporations or 
monopolies. In industry it takes the form of a conflict 
between the kind of freedom which a workman has 
who makes his own bargains and the kind of freedom 
he has if he unites with others to make a collective 
bargain through a union. 

Dangers to liberty may come from sources other 
than government. This is illustrated by religious lib- 
erty. Formerly a man might be compelled to attend or 
contribute to a church against his will. He might be 
forbidden by the government to meet with those of his 
own belief. In Catholic countries Protestants were 
so forbidden; in Protestant countries Catholics were so 
forbidden. At present it is not the government which 
interferes with religion; it is business and industry. 
Some industries have to be carried on continuously. 
Blast furnaces cannot be allowed to cool down without 
great loss. Other industries, such as the street rail- 
ways, the gas and electric lighting plants in cities, 
supply some form of public service which is needed 
every day. Of course it has always been necessary to 
take care of horses and cows, to cook meals, and to 
care for the sick, but these were home occupations 
and they did not necessarily interfere with religious 
observances. On the other hand, those employed in 
mills and on railways, or in hotels and restaurants, 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF LIBERTY 181 

have now practically no opportunity whatever for one 
important aspect of religious liberty, namely, freedom 
to worship with others. 

Freedom of speech and of the press is another lib- Freedom 
erty which was formerly threatened chiefly by the gov- of 
ernment. At one time it was forbidden to print books 8 P eecl1 
unless they had first been approved by a public censor. 
Printers or editors of newspapers were liable to be 
punished for treason or libel if they criticised the 
government. Then came a time when the newspapers 
were nearly all controlled by the ideas of some political 
party. They were called " organs." A Democratic 
newspaper was supposed to approve the measures of 
the Democratic Party. A Republican newspaper was 
supposed to approve the Republican measures. A 
Democratic newspaper advocated the election of any 
man whom the party nominated, while the Republican 
newspaper stood by the Republican, regardless of the 
fitness of his character. This is no longer so com- 
pletely the case. We have much more freedom and 
independence so far as party control is concerned. 

At the present time the freedom of the press has 
to encounter another power. Newspapers and maga- 
zines are now printed and sold at a very low price. 
In the great cities the daily newspaper is sold for one 
or two cents; monthly magazines are sold for a price 
that scarcely pays for the paper used in them; ad- 
vertising is depended upon as the chief means of sup- 
port. If now, the newspaper or magazine expresses 
opinions which are very hostile to any kind of business, 
the advertising is sure to feel the effects. Or, per- 
haps, a newspaper or magazine, like any other business 
enterprise, needs to borrow money at the banks from 
time to time. If it has been publishing criticisms of 



182 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

certain kinds of business which have influence with 
banks, it may find itself unable to get any funds and 
so be forced into bankruptcy. In the future probably 
some way will be found to secure freedom from control 
by business interests. Even now one check operates. 
For, unless a paper seems to be at least fairly reliable, 
and unless it prints a fairly full account of important 
events, its sale will suffer. Further, it is likely that 
important news will find at least one newspaper ready 
to print it, and other newspapers will not like to be 
accused of suppressing what is printed elsewhere. 



CHAPTER XVIII 
FIRST STEPS TOWARD UNION 

WE date our life as a nation from 1776, 
when the Declaration of Independence was 
adopted. It may perhaps be held that 
America was rather a union of states than a nation 
until after the Civil War. But union and cooperation 
in various degrees have been present from the early 
settlements, and the interesting thing is to note the 
growth both in the idea of union and in the methods 
by which cooperation has been made effective. 

Dangers from the Indians and from the French, and Various 
later the quarrel with England, early led the colonists reasons 
to organize themselves for mutual defense and to pro- or . 
mote the general welfare. The first form of union 
proved unsatisfactory and the Constitution was adopted 
to " form a more perfect union," but this was only the 
beginning. As the country has developed, the idea of 
union has broadened. At first the ideas of mutual de- 
fense against foreign powers, of promoting commerce, 
of establishing a post office and post roads were prom- 
inent, for need of these had been strongly felt. As our 
country has grown new needs have claimed attention. 
Some needs, such as schools, health, water supplies, 
maintaining order on the street, protecting property 
from thieves and burglars, are cared for by smaller 
unions, such as villages, towns, or cities ; others, such 
as providing for the helpless or criminal members of 
society, the insane, the blind, the poor — maintaining 

183 



184 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

courts, caring for estates, building roads, maintaining 
universities, are usually under the care of larger unions, 
counties, or states. But for certain great enterprises, 
such as building the Panama Canal, irrigating great 
tracts of dry land, preserving forests and the great 
water powers, aiding farmers by investigation of soils, 
seeds, and insects; for the supervision of banks, rail- 
ways, and of the great business corporations which 
extend over the whole country; for the more familiar 
purposes of carrying on the post office, aiding com- 
merce both in this country and in foreign countries, 
preserving fisheries and providing for the defense of 
the country against possible foreign enemies — for all 
these purposes the still larger union of the nation is 
necessary. 
Liberty In the second place, not only has the idea of the 

through en d s to be secured expanded; but also the methods for 
securing common action have undergone a great change 
since the Constitution was adopted. At first the fear 
of tyranny by the government or by some class was so 
great that men chiefly sought to keep the government 
from doing too much. They were afraid union might 
interfere with liberty and they wanted to make sure 
of liberty. The method taken for preventing the 
government from endangering liberty was called the 
system of checks and balances. Later it came to be 
felt that the only way to secure liberty was through 
union. Our demand today is for a government that 
can do things. The rise of political parties, the em- 
phasis upon the " police power " of the government, 
the movement for conservation of resources and con- 
servation of the lives and health of the people, for 
state systems of education, are some of the steps for- 
ward in methods of union. We shall consider (1) early 



union 



toward 
union 



FIRST STEPS TOWARD UNION 185 

steps toward union; (2) the Constitution with its 
" divided powers," its " checks and balances "; (3) the 
enlargement in the idea of union; (4) present problems. 

As the early comers to America sought a more 
favorable spot in which to enjoy liberty, so they 
framed a union which was more democratic than the 
government which they left behind. One of their early 
unions is worth dwelling upon, for it had so much of 
the spirit of the larger union that was to follow. 

The little band of Pilgrims who came over on the Early 
Mayflower, intending to settle in Virginia, were ste P 8 
largely members of a church in Leyden, Holland, having 
gone there from England a few years before. There 
were, however, on board the ship several who were not 
members of the Pilgrim church, and it was feared that 
some of them might make trouble. Governor Bradford 
speaks of 

" y e discontented and mutinous speeches that some of the 
strangers amongst them had let fall from them in y e ship — 
That when they came ashore they would use their owne 
libertie; for none had power to command them." 

To make sure that there should not be quarreling 
and lawlessness, something had to be done. The Pil- 
grims had originally intended to settle in Virginia, 
where there was a government ; but in the region of 
Cape Cod, where they were now about to land, they 
were outside the jurisdiction of the company from 
which they had obtained their grants. Belonging as 
they did to a church community which had separated 
from the Church of England, they had already signed 
a church covenant or agreement. It was natural to 
think of signing an agreement as a company of 



186 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

colonists. The old gilds were in many respects similar 
associations formed by a compact. At any rate, this is 
what the Pilgrims did : 

This day before we came to harbour, observing some 
not well affected to unitie and concord, but gave some 
appearance of faction, it was thought good there should 
be an association and agreement, that we should combine 
together in one body, and to submit to such government 
and governours as we should by common consent agree to 
make and chose, and set our hands to this that followes 
word for word. (Quoted by Dexter in his The Story of 
the Pilgrims.) 

Compact So they drew up and signed the following Constitu- 

signed tion, which is famous as the first in the long series of 

compacts or constitutions that have been formed in 

this country. It was signed by heads of families and 

included the names of common sailors and of servants. 

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under- 
written the loyall Subjects of our dread soveraigne Lord 
King James, by the grace of God of Great Britaine, 
France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. 

Having under-taken for the glory of God, and advance- 
ment of the Christian Faith, and honor of our King and 
Countrey, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the 
Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly 
and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, 
covenant and combine our selves together into a civill body 
politike, for our better ordering and preservation, and 
furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to 
enact, constitute and frame such just and equall Lawes, 
Ordinances, acts, constitutions, offices from time to time, 
as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the 
generall good of the Colony: unto which we promise all 
due submission and obediance. In witness whereof we 
have here under subscribed our names, Cape Cod, 11. of 
November, in the yeare of the raigne of our soveraigne 



FIRST STEPS TOWARD UNION 187 

Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland 18. 
and of Scotland 54. Anno Domini 1620. (Quoted by 
Dexter.) 

We are all familiar with the story of the growing 
colonies, of their occasional contributions for defense 
against the Indians, and then of their more important 
union in the Revolutionary War. We are familiar also 
with the unsatisfactory character of the Confederation 
under which the states continued after the close of 
the war until they were compelled to realize that a 
closer union was necessary. The result of the dangers 
and demands of the hour was the Constitution: 

We the People of the United States, in order to form a The Con- 
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic stitution 
Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the 
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this 
Constitution for the United States of America. 

So begins the great document under which, with 
scarcely any important changes except at the close of 
the Civil War, our country has been governed. During 
most of this time it has seemed to the people of our 
country and to statesmen of other countries a won- 
derful and beneficent charter of government. To most 
it has never occurred to question the disinterestedness 
or the wisdom of those who formed this plan for a 
" more perfect union." At two periods only has there 
been criticism. In both cases the root of the criticism 
has been the feeling that the Constitution is in some 
respects not in harmony with the need and spirit 
of the time. 

The first period was before the Civil War. Many 
in the North condemned the Constitution because it 



188 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Criticism 
of the 
Constitu- 
tion 

(1) as to 
slavery 



(2) as to 
other 
property 
interests 



protected slavery to the extent at least of requiring the 
return of fugitive slaves. On the other hand, the 
slave-owners of the South believed that they were not 
sufficiently protected by it and so determined to leave 
the union which the Constitution provided. After the 
war the Constitution was changed to make it conform 
to the changes in the spirit and purpose of the people. 
The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amend- 
ments gave legal form to the abolition of slavery. 

The second period of criticism is the present. It 
is felt by some that the Constitution prevents people 
from obtaining certain reforms which are needed. And 
that it makes it possible for a few to block the will 
of the majority. It is claimed that instead of being 
adopted by the whole people, the Constitution was 
really adopted by a very small majority who formed 
perhaps only about one-sixth of all male adults. It 
is claimed that it was not made by men who were 
thinking first of all of the welfare of the whole country 
but by men of property who were thinking of their 
own interests. 

We may as well face these questions frankly. It 
may be we shall find that precisely the same thing was 
true of the Constitution which we have found true of 
other institutions. Men " builded better than they 
knew." In the struggle for liberty and justice, some 
men have been moved chiefly by their own wrongs or 
their own advantage. Nevertheless, in securing justice 
for themselves they have made it possible for others to 
gain justice. On the other hand, some have always 
fought the battle of justice and liberty because they 
loved their fellow-men and believed this to be a cause 
worthy of their efforts, and if need be of their lives. 
So in the union which was secured by our Constitution. 



FIRST STEPS TOWARD UNION 189 

It may be that we shall find some working for their 
own advantage and yet helping the cause of all, while 
others even at the outset were disinterested. 

It undoubtedly is true that many, in fact almost half Early 
of the people of the country, did not at first like the division 
new Constitution which was proposed. Votes in many ° . . 
of the states were nearly evenly divided. In Massa- 
chusetts the eastern part of the state was for it, the 
western part against it. In New York at first 
a large majority of the delegates was opposed to it. 
In general people of the cities favored it, people in 
the country opposed it. Those who favored it wanted 
a closer union and a stronger government; those who 
opposed it feared that under it they would lose liberty 
and independence. 

Why was the need of greater union felt? 

First of all, the after-effects of the Revolution bore 
hard upon the people. War is always expensive. Some 
one must pay for the losses of life and property. Both 
the government and the people were poor. Hard times 
came on. Many were in debt. 

Taxes were hard to pay and were very high. It 
has been estimated that in Massachusetts the burden 
of taxes and interest on private debt for the average 
head of a family was about two hundred dollars. In 
those days most of the farmers never saw so much as 
fifty dollars in the course of a year. To pay two 
hundred dollars was clearly impossible. They had se- 
cured freedom from taxation to Great Britain, but this 
did not seem to lighten their burdens. 

In Massachusetts, which we now think of as a rather Property 
conservative state so far as property is concerned, owners 
ideas of a highly radical sort found expression in 
Shay's Rebellion. The views of the discontented were 



190 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

stated by General Knox, who was in charge of the 
forces of the state. 

" Their creed is ' That the property of the United 
States has been protected from the confiscations of Britain 
by the joint exertions of all, and therefore ought to be 
the common property of all. And he that attempts opposi- 
tion to this creed is an enemy to equity and justice, and 
ought to be swept from off the face of the earth.' In a 
word they are determined to annihilate all debts public 
and private." 

No wonder that property owners were alarmed and 
decided that some firmer government must be established 
if the country was not to be ruined. 

Merchants Merchants and traders were another class who were 
strongly interested in firmer government. Pirates on 
the Barbary Coast in the Mediterranean attacked and 
plundered our ships. There was no national navy and 
no one state was strong enough to protect its merchants. 
The British hampered foreign trade by an order that 
all trade with the West Indies must be in British ships. 
Moreover, the states set up barriers which hindered 
trade between the states. New York required boats 
from Connecticut and New Jersey to pay entrance fees 
and duties as if they had come from a foreign country. 
Connecticut business men signed an agreement not to 
send any goods whatever into New York for a period 
of twelve months. 

Statesmen Besides these groups of property owners and traders, 
a third group that supported the demand for a stronger 
union was made up of statesmen like Washington and 
Franklin, who were large enough and far-sighted 
enough to see the necessities of the whole people. Alex- 
ander Hamilton mentions these three groups in sum- 
ming up the interests favorable to the new Constitution. 



FIRST STEPS TOWARD UNION 191 

He named i ' the very great weight of influence of the 
persons who framed it, particularly in the universal 
popularity of General Washington — the good-will of 
the commercial interest throughout the states which 
will give all its efforts to the establishment of a gov- 
ernment capable of regulating, protecting, and expand- 
ing the commerce of the Union — the good-will of most 
men of property in the several states who wish a gov- 
ernment of the Union able to protect them against 
domestic violence and the depredations which the demo- 
cratic spirit is apt to make on property ... a strong 
belief in the people at large of the insufficiency of the 
present confederation to preserve the existence of the 
Union." 



CHAPTER XIX 

THE MORE PERFECT UNION: THE 
CONSTITUTION 



The Con- 
stitution 
as 

adjustment 
of 
interests 



(1) Ad- 
justment 
between 
states and 
central 
govern- 
ment 



Powers 
the 

federal 
govern- 
ment 



of 



THERE were, then, in the minds of those who 
framed the Constitution, the following conflict- 
ing claims and needs to be met. 

(1) The conflict between local government in the 
various states and a central government representing 
the union of all. 

(2) A conflict between the mass of the people who 
at this time were farmers, and on the other hand, the 
larger property owners and commercial classes. 

In general, the commercial classes were the ones 
who wanted the strong central government. The Con- 
stitution as actually framed represents a compromise, 
or rather a series of compromises, between the two sets 
of opposing views. It established what was called a 
federal system. That is, a league or union of states, 
with a division of powers. 

In certain respects the states were sovereign, that 
is, for certain purposes the people would act through 
their state governments without any interference by 
the federal government. In certain other respects, the 
newly established central government was to be sov- 
ereign. 

The powers of the federal government relate espe- 
cially to those matters which are common to the whole 
nation " either because all the parts of the nation are 
alike interested in them, or because it is only by the 

193 



THE CONSTITUTION 193 

nation as a whole that they can be satisfactorily un- 
dertaken." The chief of them are : 

All matters relating to war and foreign relations ; 

Commerce and currency ; 

Post office ; 

Control of western lands ; 

Taxation for the above purposes. 

The states, on the other hand, deal with a great Matters 
multitude of matters which are either peculiar to the dealt witJl 
people of their own jurisdiction or which at any rate y state s 
do not necessarily imply control by a national govern- 
ment. Some of the chief of them are: 

Control of business carried on within the state. 

Maintenance of order and punishment of crimes 
against persons and property so far as these are not 
offenses against the laws of the nation. 

Education in so far as this is not cared for by 
towns and cities. 

Care for the insane and other classes that need espe- 
cial treatment. 

Adjustment through courts of controversies between 
citizens as regards property, contracts, and ordinary 
business. 

Care of estates, and of minor children. 

When the Constitution was framed the adjustment 
between the two sets of powers was by no means com- 
pletely defined. But there is one important difference 
between them. The powers of the national government 
are limited by the Constitution. They must either be 
explicitly stated or else implied in that document. 
Hence if a law of Congress is questioned the authority 
for it must be found in some clause of the Constitution. 
In the states, on the other hand, there is much more 
freedom in passing new laws. The assumption is that 



194 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



(2) Ad- 
justment 
between 
states and 
the people 
at large 



an act passed by the Legislature is proper unless it is 
shown to be contrary to the constitution of the state, 
or else to the Constitution of the United States. This 
makes it easier for the states to experiment in new 
fields and is one of the advantages of a federal 
system of union as compared with such a system as 
that of France where the central government regu- 
lates the whole nation much more completely than 
with us. 

Aside from the division of powers between the fed- 
eral and state governments, there were also some com- 
promises in the Constitution itself. For example, Con- 
gress is made up of two bodies, the Senate and the 
House of Representatives. The House of Representa- 
tives was supposed to represent the people directly. 
Its members were to be elected by voters who should 
have the same qualifications as " Electors of the most 
numerous branch of the State Legislature." The sen- 
ators, on the other hand, were not to be chosen directly 
by the people, but by the legislatures of the states. 
They were not to be in proportion to the people, but 
were to be two from each state. That is, in the Senate 
each state was to count as equal to any other state, no 
matter how large or how small it might be. Vermont 
has often been much more influential in the Senate 
than much larger states, because it has retained the 
same men in office until they have become thoroughly 
expert in national affairs. 

A compromise is also provided in the method of 
choosing a president. The President is not voted for 
directly by the people. A certain number of 
" Electors " are chosen and these vote for the Presi- 
dent. Each state appoints as many electors as it has 
senators and representatives taken together. This 



THE CONSTITUTION 195 

gives the small states a little larger voice in the election 
than they would have if they voted directly. 

The merits and defects of a federal system have Defects of 
been summed up by Mr. Bryce in his American Comr- the 
monwealth essentially as follows: the faults are: e ^ ra 

Weakness in the conduct of foreign affairs. 

Weakness in home government. 

Liability to dissolution by the secession or rebellion 
of states. 

Liability to division into groups and factions by the 
formation of separate combinations of the component 
states. 

Want of uniformity among the states' legislation 
and administration. 

Trouble, expense, and delay due to the complexity 
of a double system of legislation and administration. 

Of these faults the first is not often felt at present. 
The second is sometimes acutely felt, when, for example, 
the United States makes a treaty with a foreign govern- 
ment but finds itself quite unable to protect the citizens 
of that government against violence and wrong from a 
riot in some state where these citizens may be un- 
popular. There is no doubt that the federal govern- 
ment should have the power to protect citizens of other 
countries, and thus fulfil the solemn obligations of our 
treaties. 

The danger of separation was illustrated in the 
great Civil War. Until that war there had always 
been some at important crises who thought a separa- 
tion was lawful, and threatened to carry it out. Since 
the Civil War, it seems very unlikely that separation 
will be attempted. Our Union has become much 
stronger in this respect. 

The need of uniformity is frequently felt. Business 



196 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Merits of 
the 

federal 
system 



men who are doing business in several states complain 
bitterly that it is very difficult to keep up with the 
various laws of these states. What is lawful in one 
may be unlawful in another. Another striking case of 
the evil of different laws is that of marriage and divorce. 
A person now may be lawfully married in one state, 
unmarried in another; lawfully divorced in one state, 
and still married in another. This is serious, not only 
for the man and woman, but also for their children, 
because it makes the inheritance of property by the 
children uncertain. 

On the other hand, certain merits in a federal system 
are: 

People unite into one nation without losing enthusi- 
asm and pride in their own local neighborhood and in 
their own ancestral stocks. 

It is more flexible in developing a new country where 
the needs of new regions are different from those of 
the older regions. 

It prevents the rise of a despotic central government 
which might threaten the liberties of citizens. 

Self-government by small groups stimulates interest 
in local affairs and secures better administration, since 
they will be administered by those who know them 
best. 

It enables people to try experiments on a smaller 
scale and gives the rest of the country an opportunity 
to see how these experiments work. 

It relieves the central government of a great mass 
of duties which are liable to be too great in number 
to receive proper attention. 

There is little doubt that all these merits are real. 
The chief point to observe is that while no one in this 
country would probably question the great advantage 



THE CONSTITUTION 197 

of having the two kinds of union, national union for 
national affairs, local union in states for local affairs — 
the division between these two is not fixed. When the 
Constitution was adopted there were no railroads or 
telegraphs. Each state was much more separate from 
the rest than is the case now. Scarcely any one did 
business in more than a small neighborhood. We were 
living and thinking on a neighborhood or state basis. 
Now we are doing business, living, and thinking on a 
national basis, and hence we are feeling the need in 
many ways of a different adjustment between the two 
kinds of union. 

More important probably than the balance between (3) Ad- 
local and state governments or between different sec- J ustment 

tions of the country was the balance between the con- . , , 

. /. . interests 

nictmg interests which had already caused anxiety in f 

Shay's Rebellion. various 



classes 



" All communities/' said Hamilton, " divide themselves 
into the few and the many. The first are the rich and 
well-born, the other the mass of the people. The voice 
of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and 
however generally this maxim has been quoted and be- 
lieved, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent 
and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give 
therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in 
the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the 
second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by the 
change, they therefore will ever maintain good govern- 
ment/' 

James Madison, who was one of the leaders in draw- 
ing up the new Constitution, makes a similar statement 
as to government. It must meet the problem of the 
conflict between the poor and the rich, the debtors 
and the creditors, the landowners, and the manufac- 



198 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

turers and merchants. His statement is so instructive 
as to the purpose of the checks and balances that it 
deserves to be studied by all who would understand 
our Constitution. 

" But the most common and durable source of factions, 
has been the various and unequal distributions of property. 
Those who hold and those who are without property, have 
ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are 
creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like 
discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing inter- 
est, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many 
lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, 
and divide them into different classes actuated by different 
sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and 
interfering interests forms the principal task of modern 
legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in 
the necessary and ordinary operations of the government." 

No one How was the balance between these various interests 

interest effected? Chiefly by making it difficult for any one 
should interest to prevail. That is, in the words of Professor 

p McLaughlin, by framing a government which could not 

" do things," as contrasted with one which could " do 
things." Before any measure can become a law of 
the federal government, it must pass the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, be approved by the 
President, and finally in case it is challenged as uncon- 
stitutional, be passed upon by the courts. This would 
not necessarily provide for the approval of different 
interests, but it was evidently the supposition of the 
Fathers that as a matter of fact these different 
agencies would represent different interests. The House 
of Representatives would represent the mass of voters. 
The Senate, on the other hand, it was supposed, would 
represent the more conservative, property-owning 
class. The President, according to the original plan, 



THE CONSTITUTION 199 

would not be chosen directly by the people, but by 
selected representatives who would, it was thought, 
naturally be more conservative than the mass of voters. 
Finally, the judges of the Supreme Court would be 
appointed by the President. They would therefore be 
at least as conservative as he. And besides this, the pro- 
fession of Law has always been, by its very nature, 
adapted to make men conservative. Judges look for 
general rules. They study past decisions. They feel 
bound to decide matters and often to consider matters 
not in accordance with what they personally believe 
to be right or desirable, but in accordance with what 
has been established by some other authority to be the 
law. Hence it was a fair assumption that the Supreme 
Court, which would be the final authority in the case 
of interpreting the Constitution, would be a highly 
conservative body. 

Property owners were given certain direct protection Protection 
in the Constitution. One great class of property at to 
that time was property in slaves. The Constitution P ro P er y 
provided that the slave-trade should not be prohibited 
before 1808. More important than this, it provided 
that runaway slaves who escaped into another state 
must be returned by the authorities of that state to 
their owners. A further protection against taxation 
of property was the provision that any direct taxes 
levied by the federal government must be in propor- 
tion to the numbers, that is, the great mass of the 
poor or comfortably situated voters could not lay taxes 
upon people in proportion to their wealth. Only re- 
cently has this injustice been somewhat corrected by 
the authorizing of an Income Tax. Finally, in an 
amendment adopted in the first year under the new 
government, the old provision that no one should be 



200 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Protection 
for other 
interests 



deprived of life, liberty, or property without due proc- 
ess of law " was reaffirmed. It is evident that the rights 
of the men of property were very carefully guarded. 

Where does protection for the other interests find 
place? If the Constitution is a system of checks and 
balances, where does the mass of people who are not 
property holders come in? It was probably the as- 
sumption that the great mass would not need protection 
against the few; it would be rather the few who would 
need protection against the great mass. One provision 
was inserted which gave the House of Representatives 
a certain seeming advantage. It was provided that " all 
bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House 
of Representatives." In England the power to vote 
supplies to the king had been a highly important power 
of the House of Commons. It was doubtless thought 
that this provision of the Constitution would give the 
House of Representatives an advantage which would 
counterbalance the greater power of the Senate in other 
respects, for example, in approving treaties and con- 
firming appointments by the President to important 
offices. In practice this power has not proved very 
important, as the Senate has frequently substituted 
an entirely new revenue bill of its own under the guise 
of an amendment to the bill prepared by the House of 
Representatives. Aside from this, there is little if any 
explicit provision for the direct benefit of the interests 
which Hamilton regarded as opposed to the interests 
of property. But here again, as will be shown more 
clearly in our section under Democracy, the whole 
thought of the makers of the Constitution was that in a 
democratic government the danger would always be 
in hasty and unjust action by the majority. They 
had no fear that the minority could oppress the ma- 



THE CONSTITUTION 201 

jority. They were afraid that the majority would 
rob or oppress the minority under the powers of the 
government. They meant to make it impossible for 
the government to do anything suddenly. They meant 
to make it very difficult for the majority to do any- 
thing to which a minority objected. Yet they did not 
make this absolutely impossible. They provided for 
amendments to the Constitution. They made the 
process of amending the Constitution so very difficult 
that it has at times been regarded as practically im- 
possible to secure an amendment. And yet no one 
can fail to see that in the century and a quarter since 
1787 the popular interest has found ways to make 
itself felt in various lines not directly provided. The 
balance was not so one-sided as it may seem. 

The Union of the Constitution was then a " more The Union 
perfect union " than our country had known before. It has served 
was probably the most perfect union which could have wel1 
been secured at that time for the conflicting interests. 
It was a union which has served marvelously well for 
the interests which at that time came within the vision 
of the Fathers. If we now once more feel in many 
ways the need of a more perfect union it is because 
we are facing new conditions which the men of 1787 
did not and could not foresee. 



CHAPTER XX 



Early 
strains 
upon the 
Union 



F 



GROWTH IN THE IDEA OF UNION 

OR many years after the Constitution was 
adopted no great strain came to test the 
Union which had been established. To be sure 
there were different interests in different sections of 
the country. New England had been a commercial 
region with a large shipping interest, but it suffered 
so severely from the hostility of England and France 
in the beginning of the nineteenth century that this 
shipping interest declined. When England and France 
were at war England refused to permit other countries 
to trade with France, and Napoleon forbade trade with 
England. New England therefore turned to manu- 
facturing and wanted a protective tariff. A tariff is 
a duty or tax levied on goods imported from another 
country. A tax upon woolen clothing imported from 
England would allow the American manufacturer to ob- 
tain a higher price. Other parts of the country, espe- 
cially the South, did not favor a tariff. Their interest 
was to raise cotton and sell it to England. They 
therefore favored freedom of trade. Another issue 
upon which different parts of the country had different 
views was that of internal improvements. The people 
in the newer parts of the country wanted roads and 
canals built to make it possible for them to travel and 
to take their products to market. The manufacturing 
communities also favored this policy. On the other 

202 



GROWTH IN THE IDEA OF UNION 203 

hand, other parts of the country did not wish to spend 
money in this way. It seemed to them like taxing one 
part of the country to help another. It wasn't always 
easy to see that what helped the new parts of the 
country would in the long run help the older parts also. 

Nevertheless there were many forces at work which Forces 
were constantly bringing about a greater union between promoting 
all parts of the country. First of these was the pro- union 
vision of the Constitution for free trade between all (1) Trade 
the states. No state could lay any tax upon goods 
brought in from another state. This was the first time 
in modern history that this method of free trade had 
been tried on such a large scale. Europe was divided 
up into a great many states and each had its system 
of duties or customs levied on all goods brought in from 
abroad. The amount of the tax might not be so great 
an obstacle in itself, but it was a great irritation to 
have to submit to an examination of all luggage and 
goods of all sorts. From the time of the adoption of 
the Constitution there has been a steadily increasing 
development of trade between all parts of our enlarging 
country. And when we trade with people we are more 
likely to be friends with them. 

The second great agency for promoting union has (2) In- 
been the inventions which have made possible better vent ions 
knowledge and easy communication. The Constitution 
itself provided that Congress should have power to 
establish a post office. At first the rates of postage 
were high, and people could not afford to write often 
nor to have many newspapers. It was the great inven- 
tion of the steam engine as applied to steamboats, rail- 
ways, and printing presses that made the post office 
the great agency which it now is, so well described 
in the inscription on the Washington Post Office. 



204 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Slavery 
the great 
strain 
upon the 
Union 



Cotton 
became 
king 



Inscription on the Washington Post Office 

Messenger of Sympathy and Love 

Servant of Parted Friends 

Consoler of the Lonely 

Bond of the Scattered Family 

Enlarger of the Common Life 

Carrier of News and Knowledge 

Instrument of Trade and Industry 

Promoter of Mutual Acquaintance 

of Peace and Good will 

Among Men and Nations. 

When we know people we are far more likely to remain 
friends. The less we know them the more likely we are 
to be suspicious. If it had not been for the railroad 
connecting the Pacific states with the eastern part of 
the country, it is very doubtful whether we could have 
remained one nation. In still more recent times the 
telegraph and telephone have come to strengthen the 
bonds of union between city and country, and between 
various sections of the Union. 

But while all these forces were steadily making for 
greater union, one great cause of division was left in 
the Constitution. This was slavery. In early colonial 
times slaves were held in all parts of the country, and 
in 1790, when the first federal census was taken, slav- 
ery existed in all the states and territories except 
Vermont, Massachusetts, and the district of Maine. 
There were very few slaves in New England, but there 
were almost as many in proportion to the population 
in New York, New Jersey, and Delaware as in Georgia 
and Kentucky. 

But in most parts of the country slaves had been 
chiefly house-servants or personal servants. A new 
epoch came when great cotton plantations in the lower 



GROWTH IN THE IDEA OF UNION 205 

South and the Mississippi Valley proved the most 
profitable enterprise of the time. " The plantation 
owners increased their exports alone from $£5,000,000 
in 1815 to $250,000,000 in I860, which gave them al- 
most twice as great an income as all other exporters 
combined." 

Thomas Jefferson was a Virginian, but he was 
strongly opposed to slavery and hoped to provide in the 
new government for its abolition. Gradually, how- 
ever, the great Democratic Party, which was at first 
largely a party of peasant farmers, came to be more 
and more identified with the great plantation interest. 
On the other hand, people in the Northern States be- 
came increasingly opposed to slavery. At first there 
was little disposition to question the right of slavery 
within the region where it had been established, but 
there was strong objection raised to its spread into 
the newer Northwest country acquired in the Louisiana 
Purchase. Missouri, Kansas, and the neighboring 
region were the seat of contention. The North was 
gradually building up industries on a system of free 
labor. Many believed that the increase of slavery would 
make it harder for the independent farmer and laborer 
to prosper. Finally an increasing number of Northern 
people came to believe that slavery was wrong. The 
great Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches 
divided on this. The Northern churches condemned 
slavery, the Southern churches upheld it. One of the 
fairest statements as to the sincerity of both sides in 
this great issue was that of Lincoln in 1854 : 

They (the Southerners) are just what we would be in 
their situation. If slavery did not exist among them they 
would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we 
should not instantly give it up. I surely will not blame 



206 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Webster 
as 

advocate 
of the 
Union 



Liberty 

and 

Union 



them for not doing what I should not know how to do 
myself. 

The great point for our purpose is that it was the 
question of slavery which was the greatest strain upon 
the unity of the nation. At first, statesmen like Daniel 
Webster made great efforts to exalt the sentiment for 
union without going into the radical causes of separate 
interest. Webster insisted that the Union was not a 
mere matter of profit and loss, that it was not to be 
preserved " while it suits local and temporary purposes 
to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it shall be 
found to thwart such purposes." He believed " that 
the union of the States is essential to the prosperity 
and safety of the States." (First Reply to Hayne.) 

" It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for 
whatever makes us most proud of our country. That 
Union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues 
in the severe school of adversity. It had its origin in the 
necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and 
ruined credit. Under its benign influence, these great 
interests immediately awoke as from the dead and sprang 
forth with newness of life. Every year of its duration 
has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its bless- 
ings. ... It has been to us all a copious fountain of na- 
tional, social, and personal happiness." (Second Reply to 
Hayne.) 

Some of the Southern leaders had set off liberty 
against union. They had stood for what seemed to 
them the liberty of their own part of the country to 
manage its affairs as it pleased and had regarded the 
Union as interfering with that liberty. As contrasted 
with any attempt to calculate the exact profit and loss 
or to oppose liberty and union, Webster ended his ad- 
dress with words which became classic and stirred a 



GROWTH IN THE IDEA OF UNION 207 

great depth of feeling for the Union. He prayed that 
his last look might be upon the flag of the Republic, 

" not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star ob- 
scured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interroga- 
tory ' what is all this worth ? ' Nor those other words of 
delusion and folly, ' Liberty first and Union afterwards ' 
but . . . that other sentiment, dear to every true American 
heart, — Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and 
inseparable!" (Second Reply to Hayne.) 

Henry Clay was known as the Great Compromiser 
because he sought to compromise between the North 
and South in the division of the new territory which 
from time to time was b§ing added to the nation. 
But gradually the conviction increased which was ex- 
pressed by Lincoln : " ' A house divided against itself 
cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure 
permanently, half slave and half free ; " and the Civil 
War was the outcome. 

Few in the South would now wish to have two nations A united 
instead of one even if this were possible. The fact is people 
that the great interests of trade, of common ancestry, can ° 
and common purpose, are so strong that the country things 
is naturally adapted for one great nation. The inter- 
ests of each part are so bound up with the interests of 
the rest that all gain from union. The tasks which 
lie before us are tasks which we can only accomplish 
as a united people. Only through mutual help and 
cooperation can we do the largest things. 



CHAPTER XXI 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF UNION 



(1) Race 
problems 



In the 
South 



THE present problems of union arise in part from 
our inheritance and in part from new tasks with 
which the country is confronted. These are 
(1) union between different races, (2) union between 
different classes, (3) union for the great tasks of con- 
servation of resources, improving health, and protect- 
ing the individual. In short, the need of union is to 
do together what we cannot do separately. In early 
times this meant chiefly defense against enemies; now 
it means chiefly control over nature, defense against 
disease, and finally defense against harsh or unfair 
treatment of one class by another. 

It is hard to say whether the most difficult problem 
of our country today is the race problem or the labor 
problem. The race problem is probably as old as the 
human race itself. At any rate, as far back as we 
can go in history we find people of different tribes and 
races fighting with one another. We have seen that 
in savage society all of the same tribe or group stood 
closely by one another and practised blood revenge 
upon any other group in case of injury by some one 
of that group. When certain tribes or races, such as 
the Assyrians or Romans, grew strong, they set out 
to conquer all other peoples. In some cases they even 
exterminated those whom they conquered. In other 
cases they made slaves. In our country it was the 
desire of men to gain wealth and property which led 

208 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF UNION 209 

to the bringing in of negroes for slaves. So long as 
the negroes were in slavery there does not seem to have 
been so much race feeling against them. They acted 
as nurses, and housekeepers, and personal servants. 
In many cases they were greatly attached to those 
whom they served and, on the other hand, the whites 
felt strong affection for them. Many illustrations have 
been given of the devotion of each to the other. It has 
frequently been noted that during the Civil War the 
men of the South were almost as a rule away from 
their homes. The negro servants were left in charge 
of property and families, and were faithful to the trust. 
Moreover, it is an interesting fact that the negroes 
themselves owned slaves. No less than eighteen thou- 
sand slaves were the property of negro masters. There 
was no competition between white and black. Each 
had his separate sphere and remained within it. After 
emancipation the whole situation was changed. By the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution the negro 
was granted civil rights ; then, by the Fifteenth Amend- 
ment, the right to vote. In many states there were 
more negro voters than white voters. Governments 
elected by the negro majorities were often extravagant 
and plunged the states into debt. Naturally those who 
had been for centuries slaves and without any training 
or education in self-government could not be expected 
to become at once intelligent citizens. Various other 
occasions for conflict arose. The habit of steady labor 
has been acquired by the white races through long devel- 
opment and under the influence of many motives — gain, 
reputation for thrift, and industry. The white man 
of today has very largely come to feel that labor is 
honorable, although large numbers of white men still 
regard any kind of manual labor as dishonorable and 



210 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

beneath a gentleman. The negro associated work with 
slavery just as the earlier gentlemen of the white race 
had associated manual work with slavery. Hence when 
he was freed, he in many cases thought it would be a 
disgrace to work as he had done. This made it very 
difficult for the Southern farmers to obtain help. Or 
again, the colored man might work for a time but leave 
just as the crop needed his attention, and thus cause 
great loss. For these and various other reasons there 
has been an unhappy condition of discord. 
In the In the North the race problems have been of another 

North kind. The early settlers in the country were very 

largely English. A considerable number of Scotch and 
Irish settled in the interior of Pennsylvania and along 
the upland and mountainous ridges extending southwest 
through Virginia and the Carolinas. There was also a 
German population in Pennsylvania which for many 
years used the German language and had little to do 
with the English-speaking neighbors. But the British 
stock in 1790 composed a little more than ninety per 
cent, of all the white population, the Germans less than 
six per cent., and the Dutch two per cent. English and 
Dutch had some race feeling. The New England 
phrase for something very outlandish or extraordinary 
was " That beats the Dutch." Better acquaintance 
soon overcame the trivial differences between these 
races. The great streams of immigration which have 
come to the country since 1840 have raised problems 
not so much of social unity as of industrial competition 
or political organization. The Irish began the great 
movement, driven from home by famine. A great Ger- 
man immigration was caused by efforts at revolution in 
Germany which were severely put down by the govern- 
ment. In recent years immigration has largely ceased 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF UNION 211 

from Northern Europe, and great numbers are coming 
from Italy, from Greece, and from the Slavic races in 
the southeast of Europe. Numerous Jews have come 
from Germany and more recently from Russia. The 
earlier immigrants scattered widely through the coun- 
try, the Germans, Scandinavians, and British very 
largely taking up farming land. The Slavs, Italians, 
Greeks, and Jews stay much more largely in the cities, 
except that the Slavs have gone in great numbers 
to the mining regions. 

The following table of the nationalities in New York 
City, in 1910, shows from how many strains our immi- 
grants now come. The wonder is that so many different 
races and groups can get on together at all. 

THIRTEENTH CENSUS, POPULATION 1910 
Nationalities in New York City, 1910 
Foreign-Born White: 
Born in Born in 

Austria 190,237 Roumania 33,584 

Denmark 7,989 Russia 484,189 

England 78,135 Scotland 23,115 

Finland 7,409 Sweden 34,950 

France 18,265 Switzerland 10,540 

Germany 278,1 14 Turkey in Asia 6,160 

Greece 8,038 " in Europe 3,695 

Holland 4,191 Other foreign countries. 14,788 

Hungary -76,625 Canada— French 2,844 

Ireland 252,662 Canada— other 23,228 

Italy 340,765 Cuba and the West 

Norway 22,280 Indies 5,990 

Other Races than White: 

Negro 91,709 Japanese 1,037 

Indian 343 All other 18 

Chinese 4,614 

On the Pacific coast there has been little immigra- 
tion from Europe, but after Chinese laborers had 
been brought over to aid in building the railroads, vio- 



212 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

lent agitation arose against further coming of the 
Chinese. In recent years Japanese have come in con- 
siderable numbers, but at present, by agreement with 
Japan, Japanese laborers are not permitted to come 
to the country. 

The present problems which are created by im- 
migrants are very largely those of the standard of 
living. Most of those who have come in recent years 
have been accustomed to very meager expenditure. The 
Chinese who lives upon simple, inexpensive food is 
willing to do work for very low wages. The same is 
true of the newly arrived Italian, or Greek, or Pole. 
In the cotton mills of New England the native Amer- 
icans were succeeded first by Irish, then by French, 
and still later by Poles, Syrians, and others. In New 
York and some other large cities, great numbers of 
Jews have found employment in the garment trades. 
The fact that many recent immigrants do not speak 
English makes it more difficult to organize them into 
labor unions. They tend to crowd together in their 
houses and thus lower their expense for rent. All this 
keeps wages down. 

Politically the different nationalities have naturally 
tended to keep together. Men of the same nationality 
are very apt to vote for the same candidates and to 
belong to the same political party. The Irish have 
very largely belonged to the Democratic Party, the 
Germans and Scandinavians to the Republican Party. 
As newcomers in a strange country, they are often 
influenced much more by their feelings of sympathy 
with others of the same race than by the principles of 
the party, or by the question of which is the best man 
for the position. 

What is likely to be the future of these race con- 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF UNION 213 

flicts in North and South? The race conflicts in the 
North are the easier of solution. In the first place, 
immigrants rapidly learn the language and standards Proposed 
of the country. Children are ambitious for education, solutions 
Young people imitate not only styles of dress but ™ e 
manners and customs. Workmen soon wish to have 
higher wages. Some think that this solution is suf- 
ficient. Others have believed that in order to preserve 
American standards of living and prevent such riots 
and violence as we have often seen in Pennsylvania, in 
West Virginia, and in New England, where large groups 
of foreign-speaking people have come into conflict with 
employers and sometimes with the officers of govern- 
ment, it is necessary to limit immigration or to establish 
a " minimum wage." It is urged that it is unfair to 
workingmen to have their wages continually depressed 
by newcomers. Measures have repeatedly passed Con- 
gress providing for limiting immigration by excluding 
those who cannot read and write in some language. 
Two such bills were vetoed by Presidents Cleveland 
and Taft. A third bill was enacted into law in 1917, 
despite the veto of President Wilson. Measures for 
fixing a minimum wage for women have been adopted 
in several states. 

The problem in the South is undoubtedly more dif- Improve- 
ficult. Difference in color adds to all the other reasons ment m 
for separation. Yet there is much evidence that the 
worst period has passed. At any rate, certain lines of 
improvement appear. Under the influence and leader- 
ship of General Armstrong, Booker T. Washington, 
and their pupils, a different view of work has been 
gaining ground among the colored people. They have 
been made to see that the capable farmer or carpenter 
is respected. There has been an extraordinary increase 



214 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

in the value of farms and other property owned by 
negroes. Property is, on the whole, a greater source 
of strength to the negro than the ballot. It promotes 
in the negro, as it has in the white man, sobriety, re- 
liability, regard for the opinions of others. The great 
ideal which Doctor Washington tried to set before his 
people was that of pride in their own race and in its 
possibilities rather than an ideal of imitating the white 
man and measuring themselves entirely by his standards. 
There can be little doubt that such an ideal tends not 
only to self-respect but to harmony. Two persons get 
on very much better if each is content to be himself. 
The two races a^e different in many respects. It is 
not wise to ignore this. Differences between races may 
be compared with differences between sexes: men and 
women are different, but this does not mean that a 
man is inferior to a woman or a woman is inferior to 
a man. If colored people can come to take pride in 
their own achievements and institutions, this would 
seem one of the most hopeful first steps toward mutual 
respect. 
(2) Capi- In earlier times the difference between the interests 
tal and f different parts of the country and then the differ- 
ence between the interests of slave production and free 
production were the greatest obstacles to union; at 
present the differences between Capital and Labor are 
our most serious divisions. In the early life of this 
country employers and workmen knew each other well. 
They were of the same race, spoke the same language, 
grew up side by side in the same schools, and when 
industry and business were on a very small scale no 
very sharp separations appeared. The farmer and his 
" help " worked side by side. The foreman in the small 
factory might expect to become the mill-owner. There 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF UNION 215 

were no such enormous fortunes as those of today. 
No one was very rich. Some might be poor, but there 
was no such thing as a " wage-earning " class. 

At present there is a " wage-earning " class. In the " Wage- 
great cities this class lives in a separate part of the earning" 
city. Its children attend different schools from those 
attended by children of the employers. The Industrial 
Revolution is responsible for this separation. Po- 
litically it has not as yet been true that the " wage- 
earning " class has voted as a body. It has usually 
divided much more along race lines than by Capital and 
Labor groups. Yet it is not unlikely that in the future 
lines will be drawn more frequently between the inter- 
ests of employers and those of wage-earners. The So- 
cialist Party arose in Germany to represent especially 
the interest of the working class. In this country 
workingmen have as yet preferred to improve their 
condition by trade-unions rather than through a po- 
litical party. It is worth while to see clearly what the 
two methods stand for. 

The reason for some kind of union on the part of The two 

the laborers is evident. Capital is organized in great resources 

bodies. The individual laborer alone is in no position to ° 

i • i • . • /. working 

secure any advancement m wages, unless in times of peop i e 

great scarcity of labor, nor to secure any adequate 
protection from the risks of modern machines and from 
industrial disease unless the employer chances to be 
unusually farsighted or humane. The very organiza- 
tion of our business and industry in great corporations 
separates the owner from the workman and thus cuts 
off the natural ties of union which used to hold them 
together. There are two ways in which workmen have 
tried to even up their conditions, (a) By forming 
labor unions, (o) By forming a political party. 



216 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



(a) Trade 
unions 



(b) The 
political 
party 



The trade-unions are made up, for the most part, of 
the more skilled workmen. They aim to secure better 
wages, shorter hours, and better conditions for work- 
ing, by making " collective bargains." A collective 
bargain is one in which a representative of the union 
agrees with the employer on a general rate of wages 
for all the men who do the same kind of work, instead 
of allowing each workman to make the best terms he 
can. In case the union has not been able to agree 
with the employer the chief reliance has frequently 
been a strike. When the employer has attempted to 
secure other workmen and go on with the business, there 
has frequently been violence. The root of the matter 
is, of course, that the workman cannot live very long 
without wages and often cannot turn to any other 
employment. Hence he becomes desperate when he sees 
himself in danger of losing not only his chance of 
increased pay, but his only means of livelihood, his 
"job," as well. 

On the other hand, as unions become better organized 
and include more nearly all the workmen of a given 
trade, there is much less likely to be violence. Never- 
theless within the past twenty-five years there have been 
many collisions between employers and workmen so 
serious as to cause great anxiety in the minds of 
thoughtful men. 

The other form of union which workingmen have 
adopted is the political party. This is not limited to 
skilled workmen but seeks to include all classes. Those 
who favor this plan claim that when Capital is fully 
organized in the great corporations, workingmen cannot 
hope to secure good conditions by bargaining. They 
claim that the capitalist always has an advantage be- 
cause he is in no hurry to make a bargain, while the 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF UNION 217 

workman cannot wait long. They claim further that 
strikes are less and less likely to succeed as Capital 
becomes more strongly organized. Hence they urge 
that the only way for the workingman to secure better 
conditions is through laws. And the only way to secure 
laws is through uniting in a political party. Some 
who hold this believe that there will never be a fair and 
just basis of work until the public manages all the 
great industries such as the telegraph, telephone, rail- 
roads, banks, and factories which make the necessaries 
of life. This has been the view of some in the Socialist 
Party. Many not in the Socialist Party do not think 
it is necessary for the state to own and manage all 
these industries but do believe that the state must regu- 
late them. 

The capitalist, on his side, was at first very reluctant Opposition 
to recognize the right of men to combine at all. He of 
often refused to deal with the unions and said he would capi 
deal with the men as individuals only. Some employers 
who took this position were sincere in thinking that 
this was a fair method. They wished to do what was 
right by the men. They simply did not realize that 
they had an enormous advantage. They did not ap- 
preciate that even if they wished to be fair, the work- 
man might reasonably fear to complain of dangerous 
machinery, of long hours, or of low wages lest he be 
dismissed. The capitalist was apt to forget all this. 
Other employers might be less sincere. Many took the 
view that their business was their own and they might 
manage it as they pleased. They did not want any 
outsider coming in to tell them how they should con- 
duct it. 

It must be said also that some of the demands of 
unions have been irritating. In some unions there 



218 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



The 

common 
interest 
greater 
than the 
private 
interest 
of capital 



is a definite rule as to how much work can be done in a 
day. A good workman is not allowed to do more than 
this even if he can easily do so. Unions have also 
sometimes resisted the use of machinery. On railroads 
it is claimed that the unions have often interfered with 
rules intended to make travel safe. If a man was care- 
less, a railroad manager might think it necessary to 
discharge him in order to prevent accidents. It is 
claimed that unions have often interfered to prevent 
careless men from being discharged. The chief objec- 
tions, then, to unions are that they are in some cases 
violent, that they have sometimes resisted improvements 
in machinery, that they have limited the amount of 
work that men should be allowed to do, and finally that 
they have sometimes caused strikes, to worry or harass 
employers when there was no just ground. 

We are not attempting just here to say how far 
either side is right or wrong in all these points. We 
are simply noticing the reasons for the separation be- 
tween classes. These differences will not be settled at 
once. Every American is likely to have opportunity to 
do something toward helping to settle them, but there 
is one principle which we can see clearly must be ob- 
served if we are to preserve unity and be one people. 
First, no one has the right to think only of his own 
interest or of the interest of his own class or group. 
We all have an interest in the great Union, the common 
life, the union which is more important than the private 
interest of any of us. For it is only through the 
Union — through the nation — that we have order, 
safety, peace, and liberty. May not a man conduct his 
own business as he pleases? Perhaps the best way to 
answer this is by asking another question. What is 
" his own business "? Of certain kinds of business, such 



PRESENT PROBLEMS OF UNION 219 

as railroads and warehouses, the Supreme Court has 
said that they are " affected with a public interest." 
They are so important for the general welfare that the 
public properly controls them. But is it not true that 
every business affects some one else than the owner? 
Certainly if a man has a machine shop which is dan- 
gerous to workmen, or if he conducts a hazardous busi- 
ness such as that of making powder, or white lead for 
paint, which is the occasion of accident and dis- 
ease, he is affecting others. If men are maimed, or 
rendered ill, public charity may have to step in. If 
wages are too low to support men and their families in 
health and efficiency, the whole nation suffers. For an 
employer to take the position that he will not allow 
workmen to unite in order to deal with him on terms 
of equality, that he will have nothing to do with unions, 
and that he will resist any effort of the public to regu- 
late his business, is to forget the larger public interest. 
It is not good citizenship. 

On the other hand, the labor unionist has likewise or of 
at times forgotten his citizenship. It is, of course, very labor 
hard for the under dog in a fight to remember the rules 
of the game. The workingman has usually been the 
under dog. When he has resorted to violence, when he 
has beaten or killed non-union men, when he has dyna- 
mited buildings or bridges that were being built by non- 
union men, he has not been a good citizen. Despite 
bad conditions in our factories and on our railways, 
despite the fact that it has often been hard to get 
protection by law for the lives and health of working- 
men, despite the backwardness of our government, in 
many ways, as compared with the governments of Eu- 
rope, it is nevertheless true that our country has been 
on the whole the best which the workingman has known. 



220 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

It is also true, as all the most thoughtful leaders of 
the trade-unions profess, that the workingman can 
gain only through public sentiment. He must have the 
help of all. In other words, it is only through the 
power of the nation that he can receive just wages and 
proper protection to life and health. Of all classes in 
the community he has the strongest interest in the 
Union. The employer needs the state and nation and 
their law to protect his property; the workingman 
needs the state and nation and their law to protect his 
very life and liberty. 



CHAPTER XXII 

DEMOCRACY AS SELF-GOVERNMENT 



D 



EMOCRACY is used in this discussion in two Two 
senses: democracy meaning self-government meanings 



of 



and democracy meaning equality. We do not , 

_ , democracy 

intend to use the word " Democracy " in the sense 

which is so common among us, — the name of a par- 
ticular political party, as when we say that Woodrow 
Wilson was the candidate of the Democratic Party. 
In Greece, where the word was first used, it meant rule 
by the common people, the free citizens, as distinguished 
from rule by a king or by a few. Rule by a few was 
called oligarchy or aristocracy. Growing out of this 
usage is the meaning of democracy as self-government. (1) Self- 
But at the same time, besides its meaning of self- g over n- 
government or government by the people, it included men 
also the second meaning, equality. Our Declaration (2) 
of Independence was a great democratic document in Equality 
both of these senses. It affirmed that all governments 
derive their just powers from the consent of the gov- 
erned. This was democracy in the first sense. It also 
declared that " all men are created equal." The words 
of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg are often quoted as 
expressing both these aspects of democracy — " a gov- 
ernment of the people, for the people, and by the peo- 
ple." For although the word " equality " is not used, 
the words " for the people " evidently mean, for the 
whole people, and not for some special class of the 
people. " For the people " implies, then, that all men 

221 



222 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Four 

reasons 
for self- 
govern- 
ment 



(1) No 
other gov- 
ernment 
is right 



have an equal right to be considered, although, of 
course, it may not mean that all men are equal in all 
respects or for all purposes. 

We shall consider these two meanings of democracy 
separately, and in the first place we may well ask, Why 
do the American people believe in democracy in the 
sense of government by the people. 

Many reasons might be urged for rule by the people. 
Let us consider four. (1) No other kind of govern- 
ment is right, for no one has a right to govern another 
without, that other's consent. (2) It gives a better 
government. (3) It makes people more intelligent and 
responsible. (4) It is less likely to plan and wage 
wars of aggression. We can see that it was the first 
of these reasons which was strongest with our fore- 
fathers ; today we are putting more emphasis upon the 
last two. 

The first reason appeals to men who have been op- 
pressed or treated unfairly by any government. As 
we saw in the earlier part of this book, in the clan or 
tribal life there was really a sort of self-government. 
The old men of the group handed down customs and 
decided quarrels, but the group did not think of them 
as really making laws. Frequently the old women 
would have as much influence in certain matters as the 
old men. Obedience to customs was not forced, but was 
given as a matter of course. 

But in military life the chief came to the front, and 
if he were successful, became the king. He was often 
thought to be divine and his commands were sacred. 
Or if he was not regarded as divine, he was at any rate 
so strong that his commands were obeyed as law. It 
has been gradually and step by step that the people 
have gained any right of making laws in modern Eu- 



DEMOCRACY AS SELF-GOVERNMENT 223 

ropean states. Because of the long, hard struggle 
which was still fresh in mind when the early settlers 
came to America, men prized the right to govern them- 
selves. And though they did not at first object to a 
king, they did insist very strongly upon regulating 
their own affairs in all the ways which their original 
charters allowed. In their great Declaration they did 
not affirm a completely new principle when they de- 
clared that all governments derive their just powers 
from the consent of the governed. Philosophers 
had said many times that the right to rule came from 
the will of the people. Nevertheless, the Declaration 
was the boldest, strongest statement of this principle 
which had ever been made by the representatives of a 
whole people, and it made an epoch in the world. Many 
in Europe do not believe in this principle at all. They 
believe that certain kings or emperors have a divine 
right to rule. The American idea is that while the 
little child needs to be ruled by its parents, and the 
insane or criminal have to be cared for or restrained 
by others, no one class of people has a right to rule 
other classes. As Lincoln declared in his reply to 
Douglas, " No man is good enough to govern another 
man without that other's consent." 

Two questions may come up at once when this is Why the 
said. Did our Fathers think this applied to slaves? majority 
And does it mean that every one must consent to every s ° u 
law or to the government as a whole in order to make 
the law or government right? The answer to the first 
question is easy. No doubt our forefathers did not 
apply this to slaves. The second point is more dif- 
ficult. One philosopher, Rousseau, thought that to 
make a government just there must be at the outset 
unanimous consent to form a government. But when 



224 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



The 

majority 
must re- 
spect the 
rights of 
the 
minority 



forming the government, those who entered into it 
might agree unanimously that when the government 
had been established, a majority should rule. This 
would make a majority rule just and right because all 
had agreed to it originally. We now recognize that 
men do not make governments by unanimous consent. 
Much less does every one in a country agree to every 
law. Nevertheless, we do assume that people who live 
in a country accept the government as a whole. Where 
there is free discussion and a free ballot, we think that 
the choice of the majority is, on the whole, the only 
practical way to settle any question. If the majority 
does not rule, then the minority rules. In the long 
run, the majority would seem to be more likely to be 
right, provided that matters have been thoroughly and 
fairly discussed. 

But, on the other hand, it does not follow that a 
majority is always right. Nearly every great reform, 
every new principle of progress, begins with a few. At 
first these will be in the minority. It is often only after 
years of discussion that they can persuade the ma- 
jority to adopt the minority view. But the majority 
is not only slow in adopting new ideas, it is also liable 
to decide matters selfishly. In such decisions it may be 
oppressive and disregard the interests and rights of 
the minority. It is for this reason that certain rights 
are secured by a more permanent form of law called 
a Constitution. We have seen how anxious the makers 
of the United States Constitution were to provide 
checks and balances to prevent the majority from inter- 
fering with the rights of the minority. Nevertheless, it 
is the American principle that, when they have fully 
thought things through, men are reasonable, and there- 
fore that in the long run they have a right to make 



DEMOCRACY AS SELF-GOVERNMENT 225 

their own laws and govern themselves. The different 
methods for voting and for passing upon laws by the 
courts are all intended to make sure that we act thought- 
fully and in a reasonable way. 

The second reason which has been given for democ- (2) It 
racy is that it produces better government. It is some- gives 
times said that men know what is good for themselves. better 
Bad laws come because rulers who do not know about ment 
things, or who are looking out only for themselves, 
make laws for other people. No one wishes to harm 
himself. Therefore, if all people are represented in 
making laws and in executing them, there will be no 
chance for either ignorance or oppression. 

This argument sounds plausible, but things do not 
always work as the argument supposes. Wise men may 
know how to manage their own affairs in a better 
fashion than any one else can manage affairs for them, 
but this is not necessarily true of the ignorant. In 
our large cities particularly we have not yet been 
able to obtain very good government. A group of peo- 
ple frequently vote for an alderman not because he 
is honest or intelligent, or because he will plan for the 
welfare of the whole city, but rather because he will 
find jobs for them or for their friends. Another group 
of people will try to have a man elected mayor not 
because he is the best man for the city as a whole, 
but because he promises to give them special favors 
such as franchises for street railways, or for gas or 
electric lighting, or profitable contracts in constructing 
water works, suppling coal, and the like. 

We have to confess too that what is really the will 
of the people is very hard to discover. The best we 
can say is that the will of the people will give good 
government only when the majority of the people both 



226 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

want good government and know how to get what they 
want. And yet the American people believe that in 
the long run these conditions are bound to come. It 
has great faith in Lincoln's saying, " You can fool some 
of the people all of the time, and all of the people 
some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people 
all of the time." Here again is the opportunity for 
the work of the good citizen in finding out the best 
methods of government and in getting these methods 
adopted. 

The third reason why we believe in democracy as rule 
by the people is that this makes people more intelligent, 
free, and responsible. 

The great purpose of national life, the great pur- 
pose of America, is after all not so much to manage 
things as to help all its people to live the best life. 
Now to live the best life we must have efficient govern- 
ment, we must have capable legislators and judges, we 
must have good roads and good schools. But all these 
important things are not, after all, the most important. 
The most important thing is that every citizen should 
know what is wise and best and should try to do it. 
Some things can be told us and taught us by others. 
But the greatest lessons of life we learn only by de- 
ciding things for ourselves. We learn by our mistakes 
and failures sometimes even more than by our suc- 
cesses. A little child has to be taught at first many 
things which the race has been finding out through 
many centuries. He has to be taught what to eat and 
what to let alone. He is taught to be truthful and 
honest, to be fair and kind. But, in an important 
sense, no one is really taught these things by any one 
else. It is when we have to decide for ourselves that 
we really learn in a much deeper way. When I decide 



DEMOCRACY AS SELF-GOVERNMENT 227 

for myself that I will cheat, I am deciding not only 
what I will do or learn, but what I will be. If I decide, 
on the other hand, to act squarely, I am making myself 
a " square " man. For no one of us is " ready-made." 
We are building ourselves, and the most important acts 
in building ourselves are learning and choosing. 

Further, it is only when we have some choice in mat- forrespon- 
ters that we consider ourselves fully responsible. And sibility 
to be responsible is the mark of a complete man. A child . . 
is not fully responsible, for he does not understand fully 
what he is doing; and besides, he is in part controlled by 
his parents. A weak, or careless, or bad man is not 
fully responsible; he does not stand up squarely to his 
acts; he may be careless about paying his debts, or 
may fail to carry out contracts, or to support his 
family. Then the law steps in and compels him to 
fulfil his obligations. A thoroughly upright and hon- 
orable man will be responsible for all his acts. He 
feels responsible for them just because they are his; 
and this, as we said, means that he had some choice 
before he performed them. So in government ; if we are 
to be responsible, that is, to be full-grown moral per- 
sons, we must have a chance to decide what kind of a 
government we shall have. And, on the other hand, 
when we do have this opportunity, we must stand up 
and take the consequences. We cannot evade our 
responsibility. We cannot charge our troubles to a 
king or a " boss " or to any one but ourselves. For 
we have chosen our own rulers and are making our 
own laws. If we do not like the rulers or the laws it is 
our business to choose new rulers and make better laws. 
It is just this responsibility which we cannot evade 
or throw upon any one else that makes democracy a 
great education in right living. If America had had an 



228 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

absolute monarch like the Czar of Russia (who freed 
Russian serfs by a decree in 1861), slavery might 
have -been abolished very easily. But people would 
never have been led to think about it and to ask whether 
it was right or wrong. If some of our great cities could 
be governed entirely by the United States army, they 
would be cleaner, more healthful, more beautiful, and 
there would be less killing and stealing in them. Yet 
if the people never had to make any effort to have a 
good government, should we not lose something very 
important in life? 

(4) It The fourth reason for self-government is that gov- 

makes for ernments responsible to the whole people are less 
peace inclined to aggressive warfare and more likely to main- 

tain peace and good faith. Wars have repeatedly 
been undertaken to add to the glory of a king and the 
power of a dynasty. Bismarck, in his Memoirs, recites 
how he tried to induce the King of Prussia to enter 
the war which resulted in the annexation of Schleswig- 
Holstein, by pointing out to the king that each of his 
ancestors had added something to the territory of 
Prussia. 

France, under Louis XIV, Russia, under Peter the 
Great and his successors, undertook aggressive wars 
of conquest. Under democratic government, France 
has been increasingly peaceable and Russia marked its 
abolition of the rule of the Czar by declaring at once 
that it had no desire for conquest. The United States 
has increasingly valued peace. In the words of Presi- 
dent Wilson: 

" Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbor States 
with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some 
critical posture of affairs which will give them an oppor- 



DEMOCRACY AS SELF-GOVERNMENT 229 

tunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be 
successfully worked out only under cover and where no one 
has the right to ask questions. Cunningly contrived plans 
of deception or aggression, carried, it may be from genera- 
tion to generation, can be worked out and kept from the 
light only within the privacy of courts or behind the care- 
fully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. 
They are happily impossible where public opinion com- 
mands and insists upon full information concerning all the 
nation's affairs. 

" A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained 
except by a partnership of democratic nations. . . . Only 
free people can hold their purpose and their honor steady 
to a common end, and prefer the interests of mankind to 
any narrow interest of their own." 



balances 



CHAPTER XXni 

THREE OBSTACLES TO SELF-GOVERNMENT: 

CHECKS AND BALANCES; INVISIBLE 

GOVERNMENT; LONG BALLOT 



I 



F democracy is so good a school for training people 
to be intelligent and responsible, how does it hap- 
pen that we have so much bad government? It 
may seem that after more than a hundred and twenty- 
five years of self-government, the American people 
ought to be both intelligent and responsible. Several 
reasons may be given for the defects in our govern- 
ment. Probably no one cause will account for all of 
our difficulties. But before we attribute these difficulties 
to democracy, we need to recall that we have not al- 
ways had self-government in any large degree. In 
particular, three obstacles may be noted which have 
prevented government by the people. 
Checks As we have seen, men like Hamilton and Madison, 

and wno were prominent in shaping the Constitution, were 

very much afraid of government by the people. They 
thought it must be restrained. They provided a sys- 
tem of checks and balances. The whole scheme of re- 
quiring four separate approvals of a measure — by the 
House of Representatives, by the Senate, by the Presi- 
dent, and in cases where any one could raise a question 
of constitutionality, by the Supreme Court — is admira- 
bly adapted to prevent anything from becoming a law 
unless all interests agree. 

But the system of checks and balances did not pro- 

230 



OBSTACLES TO SELF-GOVERNMENT 231 

vide any way by which the people could be sure of get- 
ting something done. It did not provide any means 
of holding any man or group of men responsible for No team 
carrying through any great measure and making it an work 
effective law. Suppose that in a given year a large 
majority of the people wished to have the government 
build a canal, or railroad. They might choose repre- 
sentatives to Congress who might pass a measure to that 
end. But the senators would not be chosen at the same 
time with the representatives. Because of the six-year 
term for senators, a considerable number of them would 
have been chosen two or four years before the time of 
which we are speaking. It might happen also that the 
particular states which were choosing senators this year 
would be opposed to the railroad; hence there would 
be very little chance of agreement between the Senate 
and the House of Representatives. Further, if the 
President were chosen as it was originally planned that 
he should be, he would not have been chosen by the 
people directly but by a small group of electors. These 
men might not have cared anything about a railroad 
and when selecting the President might have had in 
mind something quite other than his views on the rail- 
road. Finally, the members of the Supreme Court 
might have been appointed ten or fifteen years earlier. 
They might all of them entertain a view of government 
which would, in their opinion, make the building of a 
railroad by the government a work not authorized by 
the Constitution. Now it might or might not be well 
for the United States to build the railroad. The point 
is that under the plan of government provided in the 
Constitution it would be almost impossible for the 
people to try it and find out. 

The first great obstacle to self-government was set 



232 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Invisible 
govern- 
ment 

Special 
interests 



up by the Constitution itself. The other two obstacles 
to be considered cannot be laid to the charge of our 
ancestors. One of them is government by special in- 
terests, which has been called by Senator Breckenridge 
invisible government. 

Government by special interests is not a new thing. 
The makers of the Constitution were afraid of it. The 
great slavery interest at one time controlled the Dem- 
ocratic Party ; the great manufacturing interest has at 
times controlled the Republican Party. There is, of 
course, a sense in which control by interests is almost 
necessary. If people believe that manufacturing is 
important and that a tariff is necessary to make manu- 
facturing flourish, they will, of course, elect persons 
who believe the same. Or if people believe that free 
trade is a better policy, they will naturally elect free 
traders. But in the case of such large policies as those 
of Protection or Free Trade, most persons who work 
for them believe sincerely that they are good policies 
not only for them personally, but for their part of the 
country, and probably for the whole country. When 
they discuss these policies before the people, they urge 
their acceptance on the ground that they will be for the 
general welfare. So, too, labor interests in recent years 
have asked for legislation providing shorter hours and 
greater safety. They ask these things primarily for the 
advantage of workmen, but, in the long run, for the 
good of all. They might say that just as the 
government protects its citizens against violence by 
robbery or murder, so it is a measure of justice to pro- 
tect working citizens against injury from machinery 
and disease. Perhaps we may say that any interest 
which comes before the people openly and frankly has a 
right to present its claims. 



OBSTACLES TO SELF-GOVERNMENT 233 

But the government by " special interests " of which 
we are thinking is not of this sort. It is the method 
practised by groups of persons, frequently working se- Secret 
cretly, to get control of government for their own pri- groups 
vate advantage. They are not willing to come out 
frankly and say what they want. They know that if 
they should do this they would probably be defeated. 
It was a matter of course a thousand years ago for a 
king to capture a country for his own advantage and 
that of his army. He sometimes got up a claim that 
he had a divine right to it; but such a pretext was 
scarcely necessary. The American people have got be- 
yond that. If a man should say boldly, " I want to be 
elected mayor, or governor, or senator, or President, 
in order that I may fill my pockets and give jobs to 
all my friends," the people would not stand it. He must 
at least pretend something better. Hence, although 
there have always been men and groups of men in 
America who have been seeking government for just 
such selfish ends, they have usually worked secretly. 
Two kinds of such groups have been specially prom- 
inent. 

The first kind of organization is illustrated by the Tammany 
activities of Tammany Hall at one period. This was Hall 
a society established in New York City in 1789, the 
year of Washington's inauguration. At first its pur- 
poses were largely social and charitable. Later it be- 
came an important organization in civil politics. It 
gave special attention to the immigrants who began to 
arrive about 1850. About the same time a group of 
men, of whom William M. Tweed was the most con- 
spicuous, got control of the society and used its power 
to put them into offices where they had charge of great 
contracts. The governor of New York, the mayor of 



234 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

New York City, several judges, and a number of other 
officers were from the " Ring," as this group of ruling 
spirits was called. They would make contracts for 
laying out streets or building public buildings, on the 
plan that the contractors should be paid much more 
than the work was worth. This surplus was shared 
with the Ring. A county court house was planned 
to cost two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. After 
three years a sum estimated at from eight to thirteen 
millions had been expended upon it and it was still 
unfinished. Most of the surplus went into the pockets 
of Tweed and his friends. The city debt increased 
eighty-one millions of dollars during two years and 
eight months. When people complained, Tweed asked, 
" What are you going to do about it? " 

For a long time nothing was done about it. But 
finally the Ring was overthrown and Tweed ended his 
days in jail. How had it been possible for a band of 
plunderers to gain possession of the government? Was 
it because the people really wanted bad government? 
Mr. Bryce says: 

" It was not such a democracy as Jefferson had sought to 
create and Hamilton to check that had delivered over to 
Tweed and to Barnard the greatest city of the Western 
World. That was the work of corruptions unknown to 
the days of Jefferson and Hamilton, of the Spoils system, 
of election frauds, of the gift of the suffrage to a host of 
ignorant strangers, and above all of the apathy of those 
wealthy and educated classes, without whose participation 
the best-framed government must speedily degenerate." 

No other city has had so famous an organization 
as New York; but Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Chicago, 
San Francisco have been plundered by " rings " in 
much the same way and for the same reasons. Con- 



OBSTACLES TO SELF-GOVERNMENT 235 

trol of government for private ends has been managed 
with special success in the great cities, where the more 
well-to-do classes, often called " good citizens," have 
been so busy making money or in other occupations, 
that they have taken little part in government; while 
the immigrants have wanted jobs or some sort of fa- 
vors, and so have been willing to vote for any one who 
would get these for them, not knowing or caring just 
what the official might be getting for himself mean- 
while. 

The other great type of cases in which some special Railroad 
interest has controlled government is what has been interests 
called control by " Big Business." The railroads were 
the first to control state governments on a large scale, 
just as the railroads were the first great organization 
of capital. In no less than four states it was notorious 
for years that the legislature was under the control of 
the leading railway system of the state. In at least one 
of these states the decisions of the courts were also 
so uniformly on the side of the leading railway in 
doubtful cases as to make the charge plausible that 
the court was also controlled by the railways. Control 
of legislature and courts would of course not mean that 
the railroads determined all matters, but only the par- 
ticular issues in which they were interested. In some 
cases this would mean that they wanted special fa- 
vors, such as valuable franchises. In other cases it 
would mean that they wanted to prevent laws that might 
make expense or trouble for them. 

Insurance companies have not attempted to govern Insurance 
on any such large scale as the railroads, but the famous interests 
investigation into insurance companies, made under the 
charge of Charles E. Hughes, showed that the com- 
panies had spent large sums of money at Albany to 



236 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

influence legislation. In some cases, no doubt, they 
did this to prevent what is called blackmail. A corrupt 
legislator plans a scheme by which to levy upon an 
insurance company. He prepares a bill for a law im- 
posing some heavy burden upon any such company in 
his state. Then he goes to the company — or waits for 
the company to come to him, — with a proposal that 
perhaps the bill will not pass if the company is willing 
to pay handsomely to prevent it from becoming a law. 
The company may choose to pay rather than incur the 
penalty which is threatened. A measure of this sort 
is sometimes called a " sandbagging " or " hold-up " 
scheme. But the insurance companies did not limit 
themselves to defeating such " sandbagging " measures. 
Their officers watched all measures introduced in state 
legislatures and favored or opposed them as they were 
favorable or unfavorable to life insurance interests. 
No one could question that an insurance company might 
properly oppose a bill which it believed to be hostile to 
its interests, just as any private citizen might oppose 
a bill which he thought threatened his own interests. 
The suspicious feature with regard to the action of the 
insurance companies was that so much money expended 
for this purpose was in the form of " confidential " pay- 
ments for " legal " expenses. In one instance the gen- 
eral solicitor of the company expended $100,000 in 
ways known only to himself. Contributions were also 
made to political parties in national campaigns. (These 
facts were brought out in testimony taken before the 
joint committee, appointed in the State of New York, 
to investigate and examine into the business and affairs 
of life insurance companies in the State of New York — 
1905.) 

Besides railroads and insurance companies, other 



OBSTACLES TO SELF-GOVERNMENT 237 

great interests which have sought special favors — in 
cities, the street railways particularly ; in several states, 
the mining interests — have sought to influence elections, 
to secure the appointment of favorable judges, and 
virtually to govern the country for their own ends. 
They form what Senator Beveridge so well calls " the 
invisible government." 

This control of government by special interests is Bosses 
generally managed through party leaders, who are often 
called " bosses." Bosses are of various grades. In a 
city there is a ward boss who knows the voters in his 
ward and passes around word as to whom they shall 
vote for. In return he finds jobs for them either with 
the city or with the street railway or with some other 
corporation that needs favors. The city boss controls 
enough votes in the city government to pass measures 
which are wanted by various interests. In return he 
receives contributions for the party organization. The 
state boss controls votes in the legislature. The rail- 
roads, insurance companies, coal or oil companies, 
which may want favors, give him money and he gives 
them votes. Usually he does not keep this money him- 
self. He uses it to maintain the party, to carry elec- 
tions. When we feel very indignant because the people 
are not governing themselves, we blame the bosses. As 
a matter of fact, it does not seem to be the boss who 
is so much to blame. He is simply one wheel in the 
machine. The blame seems to belong rather to two 
groups: the first, those who want to carry on govern- 
ment for their own advantage and seek special favors ; 
the other, the great number of citizens who are too busy 
with their private affairs to take part in government. 
A democratic government is a splendid government in 
many ways, but it will not run itself. It needs much 



238 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

more time and thought than most people have been 
willing to give to it. In early days in this country, 
when there were no great chances for making money 
by special gifts from the government, there was not 
such great temptation. In recent years the prizes to 
be gained through getting control of some state or city 
government have been dazzling. It is said that when 
General Bliicher, a Prussian officer who fought at 
Waterloo, visited England, he was taken up into the 
Tower of London. When he saw the great city, he 
exclaimed, " What a chance for plunder ! " As we read 
the history of the Thirty Years' War, where the chief 
motives of campaigns seemed to be to capture and 
plunder cities, we realize how well General Bliicher 
stated the old military point of view. A city is a great 
chance for plunder. In modern times the easy way to 
plunder has been not by an army but by votes. The 
city of New York has given away millions upon mil- 
lions to groups of men. Other cities have given less 
amounts. 
No need No wonder that when there have been such prizes 

for dis- it nas b een h ar( J f or the people to maintain self-govern- 
courage- ment. In early times, the struggle for democracy was 
against a king or a nobility. Now it is against the 
invisible government. We do not need to be discour- 
aged. Now that we understand the case better, we are 
in a much better situation. Practices which were 
common twenty-five or even ten years ago are now 
condemned. The very fact that the invisible govern- 
ment is no longer invisible, but is seen and understood, 
robs it of power. 

We must not think that the railway and insurance 
managers and other business leaders who have sought 
to control government have been especially wicked men. 



OBSTACLES TO SELF-GOVERNMENT 239 

Many of them, when their methods have been exposed 
and denounced, have been greatly surprised at the in- 
dignation felt against them. Some have died broken- 
hearted. They were simply trying to gain profit and 
advantage without realizing how contrary their prac- 
tice was to good government. 

Besides checks and balances, and the invisible gov- Long 
ernment, one of the greatest hindrances to self -govern- ballot 
ment at present is the great number of offices which 
are filled by election. In a small town, where people 
all know each other, an election is a good way to choose 
officers, but in a state or a city it is impossible for most 
of the voters to learn about many candidates. Hence, 
when a large number are to be voted for the voter either 
has to depend upon voting the party ticket straight or 
else has to vote blindly. In some of the states, so many 
candidates are on the ballot that it is quite impossible 
to vote intelligently. At the formation of the state 
government, such officers as governor, lieutenant gov- 
ernor, and members of the legislature were provided 
for. As time has gone on other officers of various 
kinds have been added — secretary of state, treasurer, 
judges, superintendent of public instruction, and even 
clerks of courts. Counties and cities have numerous 
officers. One can learn something about candidates from 
the newspapers, but little is usually said about the 
candidates for the minor offices. At the last presi- 
dential election each voter in Chicago was called upon 
to express his choice for twenty-nine presidential 
electors, and for over fifty state, county, sanitary dis- 
trict, and city officers. Of course he need not bother 
himself about the presidential electors, for he could 
merely look to see whether they were for Wilson, 
Hughes, Benson, or Hanley. He also knew something 



240 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

about the candidates for governor; but as to the rest 
he probably knew almost nothing. 

The natural result of a long ballot is that only the 
inside, or professional, politician knows what he is 
doing. To vote for fifty officers at one time is not 
really government by the people; it is government by 
the " machine." A very unfit candidate may be smug- 
gled into office by this method. It deserves to be called 
" unpopular government " rather than " popular gov- 
ernment." 

Short The plan proposed to remedy this is the short ballot. 

ballot The principle of this is first, that only those offices 

should be elective which have to do with the policy of 
the government and are important enough to attract 
and deserve public interest; second, that very few 
offices should be filled by election at any one time, so 
as to permit the people to find out what sort of men 
they are voting for. 



CHAPTER XXIV 

STEPS TOWARD GREATER SELF-GOVERNMENT 
PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENCY 

ONE step toward more direct self-government was Function 
soon taken. The roundabout way of choosing of the 
the President by electors was never abolished, e e ° ora 
but the people found a way to vote directly for Presi- changed 
dent. A candidate was nominated before the electors 
were chosen. A set of electors who would vote for this 
candidate was then chosen, at first by the legislatures 
of the states, later by popular vote after having been 
nominated by party conventions. So at the last elec- 
tion the Democratic Party nominated Woodrow Wilson, 
the Republican Party Charles E. Hughes, the Prohibi- 
tion Party J. Frank Hanley, the Socialist Party Allan 
L. Benson. In every state each of these parties also 
nominated a set of electors. The voter cast his vote 
for the electors. But he paid no attention to who 
these electors were. He knew that he was really voting 
for Wilson, Hughes, Hanley, or Benson. He knew that 
no elector on the Democratic ticket would dare to vote 
for anybody but Wilson. 

Nothing is said in the Constitution about political Parties 
parties. Until very recently they have not been recog- as an 

nized by law in any way, and yet we all know that *S enc y ° 

democracy 
when any one is to be chosen for any office the first 

question asked is, What party does he belong to? We 

know that if any one is to be elected governor or 

President, he is first nominated by some political party. 

241 



242 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

Why is this, and how did it come about that the real 
government is carried on by an agency which was not 
thought of at all in the Constitution? 

The party really arose to supply the lack which men 
felt as soon as they began to carry on the government 
under the new Constitution. The Constitution had 
made it difficult for any one body to do anything unless 
several other bodies consented. If now the people who 
thought alike on some matter wanted to make laws to 
carry out their views, there was no machinery by which 
to do it. It was natural for them to combine and 
choose men as senators or representatives or President 
who would carry out their policy. The party was then 
a necessary means of self-government. 
Early The makers of the Constitution were afraid of par- 

fear of ti es# They thought that parties tended to split up and 
par les divide the people. In his farewell address Washington 

said : 

" There is an opinion that parties in free countries are 
useful checks upon the administration of the government 
and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within 
certain limits is probably true and in governments of a 
monarchical class, patriotism may look with indulgence if 
not with favor, on the spirit of party. But in those of 
a popular character, in governments purely elective it is 
a spirit not to be encouraged." 

The Federalist, a series of papers written chiefly by 
Hamilton and Madison in support of the Constitution, 
speaks of the " pestilential influence of party animosi- 
ties." But it was soon found that while the system of 
checks and balances might prevent government from 
doing harm, it made it almost equally difficult for gov- 
ernment to do any good. 

It soon turned out that there were two great groups 



PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENCY 243 

with different interests. The one wanted a strong cen- 
tral government, the other a government which would 
interfere very little in states' rights. The military 
group, who had seen the evils of a weak government in 
time of war, wanted a strong government. Those who 
wished to develop banking, commerce, and manufactur- 
ing felt the same way. These largely made up the 
Federalist Party. On the other hand, Jefferson did 
not believe in encouraging manufactures. He said: 

" While we have land to labor, let us never wish to see 
our citizens occupied at a workshop or twirling a distaff. 
. . . Let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better 
to carry provisions and materials to workmen there than 
to bring them to the provisions and materials and with 
them their manners and principles. . . . The mobs of 
great cities add just so much to the support of pure govern- 
ment as sores to the strength of the human body." 

Moreover, Jefferson had great faith in the masses. The 
" He still adhered to his doctrine," says Professor Demo- 
Dodd, " that most farmers are honest, while most other c ™^_ 
people are dishonest." A great new population along 
the upland border region of the South were very fa- 
vorable to Jefferson's views. He introduced a new line 
of divisions. Instead of the first line separating North 
from South " he had drawn a line from northeast to 
southwest, from the town of Portsmouth in New Hamp- 
shire to Augusta in Georgia, west and north of which 
almost every man was his devoted admirer." The party 
which he formed was, in the words of Professor Dodd, 
" a party of practical idealists in this country, never 
likely to reappear — a party of peasant farmers led by 
a great peasant planter in a nation ninety-five per cent, 
of whom were peasant farmers." 

At a later period, under the leadership of Southern 



Party 



244 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

statesmen like Calhoun, the Democratic Party came to 
represent especially the great cotton plantation and 
slave-holding interest. It was the means by which all 
who agreed on the policy of extending slavery co- 
operated to elect presidents, senators, and representa- 
tives who favored slavery. Judges of the Supreme 
Court were naturally appointed from this same party, 
and hence so long as this party was in power there 
was unity in the government. In a similar way, those 
who were interested in commerce, and who believed that 
the government ought to build canals and make other 
" internal improvements," got together for common ac- 
tion in the Whig Party, although they did not succeed 
in getting control of all parts of the government in 
such a way as to carry out their plans effectively. 
The Re- The most striking example of the party as an agency 

publican f or carrying through a single great idea was the rise 
arty of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party, just 

before the war, had come to be controlled largely 
by the great cotton-planting and slavery interest. 
The northwestern portions of the country were inter- 
ested in other things. They were willing to let slavery 
remain where it was. But the settlers in the new 
states, the pioneers, did not like to have all their policies 
controlled by that one interest, and so in the election 
of 1860 the old Democratic Party, which had been in 
control so long, split into three groups, no one of 
which could poll a majority of votes. The newly 
formed Republican Party, which numbered among its 
adherents the voters of the old Whig Party, together 
with many of the Democratic Party who were opposed 
to the spread of slavery, was able, as a result of the 
split in the Democratic Party, to elect Lincoln. For 
twenty-four years, beginning with I860, the Repub- 



PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENCY 245 

licans remained uninterruptedly in control of the na- 
tional government, and of the state government in most 
of the Northern states. Indeed during the whole half- 
century from 1860 to 1912 it may be said broadly that 
government was carried on by the Republican Party, 
since there were only two Democratic administrations 
of four years each in that time. Thus, during the first 
half of the last century of our national life, the gov- 
ernment was chiefly through one party, for the second 
half through another party. All important officers of 
government were selected by these two parties; all im- 
portant laws and policies were decided by the members 
of these two parties. 

Another step toward democracy in the sense of self- The 
government has been the great change in the presidency President 
by which the President has become the recognized head a ^ agen 
of his party. The party was a means of getting " team r 
play." But who should be captain of the party team? 
At first there were several " captains," or leaders, men 
who planned things. But they often worked in secret, 
and there was no recognized head who could be held 
responsible. It was quite foreign to the original idea 
of the presidency that the President should in any way 
influence Congress, much less that he could be held 
responsible for what his party did in Congress. 

The original idea of the President was that he should The 
be independent of Congress and that Congress should original 
be largely independent of him. When the Constitution J ea ° 
was under discussion, some were afraid that the Presi- p res idencv 
dent would have too much power, although it was 
finally decided to give him the right of veto, with the 
provision that if a vetoed bill should afterward receive 
a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress it 
should become a law, notwithstanding the veto. The 



246 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



The 

President 
nominated 
by a 
party 



Progress 
of 

democracy 
in Great 
Britain 



thought was that the President would be a sort of wise 
and disinterested umpire. It was considered, further, 
that his chief duty would be to execute the laws which 
Congress had passed, without himself interfering with 
Congress. This was a part of the plan of checks and 
balances. 

The first great step toward changing the position of 
the President was to nominate him by a political party. 
At first members of Congress got together in a caucus 
and " recommended " candidates. Party leaders cor- 
responded with one another and found out what the 
opinions were in different parts of the country; but 
in 1832 the various parties called conventions to nom- 
inate their candidates. The President thus became 
much more directly the representative of the people 
than he had been before. Indeed he might claim, and 
he soon did, that he was the only direct representative 
of the whole people, for senators and representatives 
were chosen by separate groups or sections, and not 
by the people as a whole. This was really working a 
revolution in the whole idea of the government. It 
came about largely through the great popularity of 
General Jackson, especially his popularity in the newer 
parts of the country, where the pioneers lived and 
where the influence of the frontier was strong. 

We may compare the change in our government with 
a different change which has been effected in Great 
Britain. In both countries, during the past hundred 
years, there has been great progress toward democratic 
government. In Great Britain public sentiment has 
found one way of getting things done, in America an- 
other. In England, the king and Parliament were 
neither of them very directly under the influence of the 
great majority of the people of England until 1832. 



PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENCY 247 

Thus in the time of our Revolution the colonists blamed 
King George for their grievances. They did not blame 
the English people, for the English people did not 
have any direct voice in the government. The king 
appointed his own ministers ; he controlled the election 
of many members of Parliament; and it was not un- 
common to bribe members of Parliament by various 
kinds of favors to support the measures which the 
king desired. Three steps were necessary to give public 
sentiment control. First, the king must not act by 
himself but only under the advice (which practically 
meant the control) of his ministers. Second, the prin- 
ciple was gradually established that ministers could 
not expect to continue successfully in office unless a 
majority of Parliament supported them. Third, the 
election of members of Parliament must be changed 
so that a large part of the people should have the right 
to vote for them. The so-called " rotten boroughs " * 
which had the right to choose members of Parliament 
must be abolished. At present in Great Britain, 
if the people wish Home Rule for Ireland or a system 
of Old Age Pensions or any other policy, they secure 
it by electing a majority to Parliament in favor of 
the proposition. The king must select the ministers 

* The House of Commons was made up of members chosen in 
two ways; (1) Representatives from the "counties" called 
"knights of the shire," and (2) representatives of the towns 
or "boroughs." In the course of the many centuries since these 
boroughs were first given representation, some of them like Lon- 
don had grown enormously, but others had decreased in size to 
almost a handful of persons. " At Old Sarum a deserted site, 
at Gatton an ancient wall, sent two representatives to the House 
of Commons. Eighty-four men actually nominated 157 mem- 
bers for Parliament. ... In one case the candidate called the 
meeting, proposed, elected, and returned himself." (Goldwin 
Smith, The United Kingdom, pp. 320-321.) On the other hand, 
great cities like Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds had no rep- 
resentation at all. 



248 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



The 

President 

as 

responsible 

to the 

people 



who are to carry on the government from the party 
which has carried the election. Thus in Great Britain 
the government is by ministers who are responsible to 
their party. The party is responsible to the people. 

In the United States the tendency has likewise been 
toward government by the party. But, as it might 
happen that the party does not always have a Presi- 
dent and also both houses of Congress, the party in 
that case cannot make laws and control their execution. 
Hence the party claims it is not responsible. The 
people, however, have been gradually looking to the 
President more and more to carry through what they 
desire. Andrew Jackson did much to promote this 
view that the President is the people's representative. 
In the Civil War, the President naturally had greater 
authority and influence than he would have had in 
time of peace. In recent years, Cleveland and Roosevelt 
regarded themselves as responsible to the people, not 
only for approving laws, but for urging the passage 
of legislation. President Taft was criticised because 
he did not secure the enactment by Congress of meas- 
ures for tariff reform which the party was understood 
to have promised in its Platform. President Wilson 
has conspicuously and openly taken the position that 
he, more than any one else, is responsible for seeing 
to it that what he regards as the will of the people is 
carried out by legislation. We may say, then, that the 
American people, when it began to want a government 
that would do things instead of a government that 
could not do things, first hit upon the political party 
as the way of getting team play, and then made the 
President captain of the team. The people approve 
the President now for doing what would have been 
regarded as entirely wrong one hundred years ago. 



PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENCY 249 

When football began to be played in American colleges 
there was not much " team play." Each player had 
his position on the team and tried to do his best, but 
he didn't know who was to have the ball and so he 
could only by accident be of any help. It was eleven 
players, each for himself. This method did not advance 
the ball very rapidly unless, by good luck, some player 
should find an opening and make a long run. Under 
the present method, when a play begins by one team, 
every member of that team knows who will take the 
ball and what he himself must do in order to help ad- 
vance it toward the opponent's goal. The political 
party is an organized team. Sometimes it may stand 
for wise measures and sometimes for weak or unwise 
measures. But at any rate it does unite people and 
make them work together to carry measures through. 
If the people do not like the measures they can punish 
the party. 



CHAPTEJEt XXV 

MEASURES PROPOSED FOR GREATER 
SELF-GOVERNMENT 



W 



ITHIN recent years there has been much dis- 
satisfaction with various hindrances to self- 
government. In some cases, this dissatis- 
faction has been because the representatives in 
legislatures have not passed laws which the people have 
desired. In other cases, mayors of cities or other ad- 
ministrative officers have failed to carry out laws which 
have been passed. In still a third type of cases, judges 
have declared laws unconstitutional which have been 
adopted by legislatures, or have decided cases in a way 
which was opposed to the general view, although it may 
have been in accordance with the law as the judge 
understood it. 
The To meet these difficulties, methods called the " Initia- 

initiative tive, the Referendum, and the Recall " have been 
proposed, and, in some states, adopted. The initiative 
applies to legislation. There may be a very general 
desire for a certain law and yet the state legislature 
may fail to enact it. In such a case, in a state which 
has the initiative a certain percentage of the voters 
may petition to have the measure submitted to a gen- 
eral vote of the people. If it is approved it becomes 
a law. This method has been used in Oregon for sev- 
eral years. 

The referendum is a check upon legislation. The 
provision is that when a legislature or a city council 

250 



GREATER SELF-GOVERNMENT 251 

has passed a measure, this measure must be referred 
to a vote of the people before it can become a law, The 
provided that a certain percentage of the voters peti- referen- 
tion that this be done. dum 

The recall is applied to officers who incur the disap- 
proval of the people. It is provided that on the petition 
of a certain percentage of the voters a new election 
must be held at which the officer shall be a candidate 
for approval, or for rejection in favor of another. 
This has been tried chiefly upon the Pacific coast. 

These new methods for expressing the will of the Referen- 
people are regarded by some as very valuable and dum 
by others as not merely unwise but as revolutionary. new 

It is well to notice that we have always used the 
referendum and the recall, to a certain extent, in the 
United States. Practically every state constitution has 
been referred to the people for a vote; but the most 
striking case is the adoption of the National Constitu- 
tion. The framers of this were apparently afraid that 
the state legislatures might not accept it and still more 
afraid that Congress would not approve it. They re- 
ferred the measure to conventions which were to be 
chosen in the states for the express purpose of voting 
upon the Constitution. They even provided that when 
this new Constitution should be adopted by nine states 
in this way it should go into effect. This was prac- 
tically overthrowing the older government in the other 
four states in case they should not choose to adopt the 
new, for in this case they would be left out in the cold. 

The recall is not very different in principle from the Impeach- 
plan of having frequent elections ; but it undoubtedly ment and 
is more drastic. Yet all states have had provisions for 
some method of getting rid of officers who do not do 
their duty. The President of the United States and 



252 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Legislator 

and 

executive 

represent 

policies 



federal judges may be impeached by Congress. Presi- 
dent Johnson was very nearly removed in this way. 
Several federal judges have been so removed. In the 
case of impeachment, charges against the official are 
presented and he has a chance to make a defense. It 
is a kind of trial, and in federal cases the charges must 
be proved to the satisfaction of two-thirds of the 
Senate. But in Massachusetts a judge may be removed 
without any trial if by a two-thirds vote each branch 
of the legislature passes a resolution calling for his 
removal. 

No one objects to provisions for impeachment. 
There is also less difference of opinion on the question 
of removing an executive officer like a mayor than on 
the question of removing a judge. The reason for this 
is that there is an important difference between the 
duties of a legislator, or an administrative officer, such 
as a mayor, and the duties of a judge. A legislator is 
supposed to make laws for the good of the people. 
But he is also supposed to represent the people. He 
is in a sense instructed by the people. If he does not 
carry out the policy which his constituents desire, it 
is proper that he should have a chance to explain why. 
If the people have so much confidence in him that they 
are willing to take his judgment as being wiser than 
their own, then they may continue him in office. But 
if they believe firmly that a measure is right which he 
is unwilling to favor, then it seems entirely proper that 
they should choose some one else to represent them who 
will favor it, in case the matter is one of great im- 
portance. 

It might at first seem that a governor or mayor has 
only to execute laws, and that therefore he is either 
doing his duty or is not. If he is, he ought not to 



does not 



GREATER SELF-GOVERNMENT 253 

be recalled. If he is not, then he should be impeached, 
that is, tried before some body that will carefully con- 
sider the charges. But as a matter of fact, officers 
like governor and mayor really represent some policy 
quite as truly as do the representatives and senators 
or members of the city council; hence if the recall of 
legislators is wise, the recall of an administrative officer 
may well be wise also. 

The judge is not supposed to decide matters of The 
policy. He is supposed to apply the law to a par- J ud g e 
ticular case. For example, two of the great questions 
about which there has been much difference of opinion 
are the questions of trusts and of strikes. Now the 
people are supposed to pass laws to decide whether 
trusts shall be permitted or forbidden. It is then the 
business of the judge to decide, either alone or with 
a jury, whether such an organization as the American 
Tobacco Company or the Standard Oil Company comes 
under the law. In the case of a strike it is not the 
business of a judge to decide whether it is right to 
strike, but only to decide whether John Doe has done 
anything contrary to the law, either by injuring his 
employer's business or by injuring some workman. 
The law itself is supposed to be already made, either 
by some statute passed by a legislature or by the de- 
cisions of previous judges. These decisions, when made, 
were supposed to express the general sense or custom 
of the community as to what was right. Hence it 
would seem to be clear that a judge either does his duty 
in administering the law or else violates his duty. In 
the first case, he ought not to be afraid of being re- 
moved from office. Rich men or powerful men, on the 
one hand, and poor men, on the other, ought to feel 
that the judge is impartial, that he cannot be influenced 



254 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

by any fear of removal so long as he is acting strictly 
as the law requires. This is the reason why many who 
believe in the recall of other officers do not believe in 
the recall of judges. The following is taken from 
The Outlook: 

" But the judiciary are not representative/' says Presi- 
dent Taft, " in any such sense " as the legislative or 
executive. " It is a complete misunderstanding of our 
form of government, or of any kind of government that 
exalts justice and righteousness, to assume that judges are 
bound to follow the will of a majority of an electorate in 
respect of the issue for their decision." As to the recall 
of judges, " there could not be a system better adapted 
to deprive the judiciary of that independence without 
which the liberty and other rights of the individual cannot 
be maintained against the government and the majority/' 



CHAPTER XXVI 
DEMOCRACY AND THE COURTS 

IF the reasons against recall of judges are so strong, 
as former President Taft thinks, why does any one 
favor it? Is it because people are stupid, or be- 
cause different parties and interests think that by re- 
calling judges they could escape from the consequences 
of disobeying just laws? To understand the reason 
for the agitation which we have had during the past 
few years we must look deeper. 

The supposition which we stated in the last chapter Do courts 
was that the courts apply laws but do not make them. make law 
The real source of trouble is that this is only partly ? r a P p y 
true. Let us examine more carefully both kinds of 
law, the common law and the statute law, in order to 
see how far judges apply law and how far they make it. 

Common law we learned something about in the ear- (1) In 
Her part of the book. We saw that it was built up step common 
by step by the English judges, as they decided cases 
brought before them. They based their decisions in 
part upon the customs of the country; in part they 
reasoned out what would be the fair thing in a new 
case. They went by previous decisions so far as these 
seemed to apply; but from time to time there would 
be something new in the matter that would have to be 
decided on the basis of what the judge believed to be 
reasonable. 

In recent years many new issues have come up for 
decision and conditions have changed so completely 

255 



law 



256 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Instance 
the 

fellow- 
servant 
rule 



that judges have had to do one of two things. They 
have had to follow the old decisions strictly, and there- 
fore make a decision which doesn't fit the present case ; 
or they have had really to make a new precedent. One 
illustration of the way in which judges virtually make a 
new law was the group of decisions, about a hundred 
years ago in England, holding trade-unions and strikes 
unlawful. Professor Stimson points out that there 
were two lines of statutes, either of which the courts 
might have followed. On the one hand was the old 
line of common law decisions as to gilds, which treated 
these unions as perfectly lawful. On the other hand 
was the old line of Statutes of Laborers, which fixed 
a lawful wage. The courts might have regarded a 
trade-union as a sort of gild, and therefore called it 
lawful. What they did was to regard it as " a com- 
bination of workingmen to break the law by getting 
more than lawful wages." It is easy to see that the 
courts were really making a new law here by selecting 
which of two possible rules they would apply. In- 
deed there are now so many cases to which a judge 
may refer for a precedent in making a decision that 
it is almost always a question of choosing which prece- 
dent he will follow. A distinguished jurist has said, 
" that a judge may decide almost any question any 
way and still be supported by an array of 



cases. 



One illustration of the way in which a judge really 
makes new law, although he may think that he is simply 
following an old rule, is found in the so-called fellow- 
servant rule. Under the old rule of common law a 
servant or employee could not recover damages for 
an injury caused in whole or in part by the negligence 
of a fellow- servant. In olden times only a few work- 



DEMOCRACY AND THE COURTS 257 

men would be employed together. It was easy for each 
to know the rest. Moreover, there was little if any 
machinery. Under such conditions it was not a very 
unfair rule. The leading case in this country in apply- 
ing the rule was that decided by Judge Shaw of Massa- 
chusetts. A locomotive engineer was injured by the 
neglect of a switchman. The court held that the switch- 
man was a fellow-servant, and therefore that the en- 
gineer could not recover damages. " The implied con- 
tract of the master," said the court, " does not extend 
to indemnify the servant against the negligence of any 
one but himself." Now the practical effect of this 
upon a great railway system employing thousands of 
men would be to leave the workman with practically 
no relief at all in the great number of cases where 
some one might be careless. Under the earlier methods 
of industry a man might know something about his 
fellow-servants and the risks he was taking, so that he 
would be reasonably safe. To apply the old rule to 
the conditions of a great railway system in which an 
engineer could know nothing about the conduct of the 
thousands of other men on whom his safety depends is 
in reality to make a new law, although the old phrases 
may be used. 

As a result, in part, of the precedent thus set, which 
has been followed by the courts, very few workmen in 
proportion to the total number injured have received 
any damages. Although they and their families are 
ill able to sustain the losses due to the dangerous 
character of modern machinery, the law as thus inter- 
preted by the courts has practically compelled them 
to bear the whole weight, except when statutes have 
been passed to abolish the older rule, or else to give 
compensation irrespective of who may be at fault. 



258 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



(2) In 
statute 
law 



Instance, 
the 

Fourteenth 
Amend- 
ment 



What has made the above interpretation seem harder 
is that railways and other common carriers have been 
held strictly responsible for injuries to passengers 
or for parcels intrusted to them for shipment. It has 
thus appeared that the courts have protected property 
more carefully than they have protected the lives of 
workmen. 

Besides the common law, the other great division of 
law is the statutes, that is, laws passed by Congress 
or by legislatures. Here it may seem that the judge 
cannot, if he would, make law; apparently his only 
duty is to decide whether a case comes under the law. 
But before the judge can decide this, he has to decide 
what the statute means ; laws are usually stated in 
very general terms and sometimes the terms are not 
clear. The judge must interpret the statute. He may 
give it an interpretation which really makes a new law. 
For example, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con- 
stitution has this clause, " Nor shall any State deprive 
any person of life, liberty, or property without due 
process of law ; nor deny to any person within its juris- 
diction the equal protection of the laws." Professor 
McLaughlin says : " By this amendment, the nation in- 
tervened to protect the citizens of the State against 
unjust legislation or action of the State." " Before 
this amendment was passed . . . the state had complete 
control over its citizens and could be as tyrannical as 
it saw fit, provided that it did not interfere with the 
relations between a person and the National Govern- 
ment or violate the few expressed prohibitions in the 
National Constitution." 

What was the purpose of this amendment? Evi- 
dently to protect the negro from unfair laws such as 
those of peonage, which would virtually continue slav- 



DEMOCRACY AND THE COURTS 259 

ery under legal form. At the time probably no one 
thought of anything else, but afterward a new ques- 
tion arose: Some of the states passed laws regulating 
railroad charges. The railroads thought these laws 
unjust. A court of the United States was appealed to 
on the ground that the law was depriving the railroad 
of its property without " due process of law." Now 
the first question for the court to decide was: Is a 
corporation, such as a railroad company, a " person " 
within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment ? Can 
the state treat a corporation (or, as it is sometimes 
called, a " corporate person ") in a different way from 
a "natural person"? The court held that the cor- 
poration was a person and therefore that all such laws 
enacted by states might be brought before the United 
States courts. If the courts regarded them as violat- 
ing the Fourteenth Amendment it could declare them 
void. Now such a decision is much more important 
as settling a principle than most of the statutes passed 
by legislators; it is for all practical purposes making 
law and not merely declaring it. Or, to put the matter 
in other terms, it is declaring what the law shall mean, 
not what it meant when it was enacted. 

But by far the most important reason for dissatis- The 
faction with the courts in recent years has been the courts 
decisions of the courts in which they have declared decla ^e 
laws unconstitutional and therefore void. This seems , 
to set the court directly against the will of the people, uncon&ti- 
During the past few years state legislatures have passed tutional 
many laws designed to improve the conditions of work- 
ingmen and women or to restrain the powers of great 
corporations. Many of these laws have been declared 
unconstitutional; for example, an eight-hour law for 
women in Illinois, a ten-hour law for bakers in New 



260 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

York (upheld by the state court but declared uncon- 
stitutional by the United States Supreme Court), a 
law forbidding tenement labor, a law to compel regular 
payment of wages, a law to compel payment of wages 
in cash instead of truck, a workman's compensation law 
passed by the New York legislature. The most striking 
recent decision was in the case of Coppage vs. Kansas, 
in which the law passed by the Kansas legislature for- 
bidding employers to discharge workmen for being mem- 
bers of a labor union was declared unconstitutional 
by the United States Supreme Court. 

This brings up at once a peculiar feature of our 
government. In England, if Parliament passes a law, 
no matter what, it holds. No judge or other authority 
can question it. In the United States, on the other 
hand, no one knows whether a statute passed by a legis- 
lature is really to stand until it has been tested by the 
courts. The court does not of course attempt to say 
whether it approves of the statute as wise or not; it 
only decides whether the statute is in accord with the 
Constitution. The constitution of the state or of the 
United States is the fundamental law. It has been 
adopted by the whole people. The statute, on the 
other hand, has been passed by a legislature. It is 
very evident that if a statute contradicts the Consti- 
tution it ought not to be regarded as a law; if it is 
desired to change the Constitution, the Constitution 
ought to be amended. But the question is, does the 
statute really contradict the Constitution or only seem 
to? And who is to decide? It might be provided that 
the legislature or Congress should be the judge upon 
this point. But very early the courts in some of the 
states decided that they were not bound by laws which 
appeared to them to contradict the Constitution. The 



DEMOCRACY AND THE COURTS 261 

famous decision which has served as a precedent ever 
since was that of Marbury vs. Madison, in which Chief 
Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court 
declared : " It is emphatically the province and duty of 
the Judicial Department to say what the law is. . . . 
If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must 
decide on the operation of each." 

For many years this power of the courts did not why 
excite great opposition because it did not conflict with this 
the will of the people in any great number of cases. excites 
But in recent years a new situation has developed. 
The increased use of machinery, the dangers of city 
life to health, the evils of the sweating system, bad 
housing, and other consequences of our factory system 
have led to a general movement for protecting working 
people. On the other hand, the enormous growth of 
corporations and trusts has called out laws to restrict 
their power. Both kinds of laws have often been de- 
clared invalid. The will of the people has seemed to 
be directly blocked by the courts; there has been criti- 
cism and even anger and distrust. 

What is the trouble? Are the new laws right or Three 
are they wrong? If they are good laws, then why can causes of 
we not have them? Is the fault that of the judges or conflict 
is it because our constitutions, state and federal, are 
behind the times? There are elements of truth in all 
three views. Some of the laws which have been passed 
with very good intentions have not been properly drawn. 
They would undoubtedly do injury in the long run to 
some one even though they might be a benefit in other 
cases. In the second place, many of the judges who 
have given the decisions have been very narrow in their 
views of what the Constitution really meant. They 
have read into the Constitution a meaning of their own 



262 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

and then claimed that the statute did not agree with 
it. Many of them, too, have known so little about the 
conditions of workingmen that they have assumed a 
wrong set of facts while claiming to decide the case 
purely on principles of law. But the third cause is 
perhaps the most important. Our constitutions were 
most of them framed many years ago when conditions 
were different. They were framed when there was no 
machinery, no factories, no railroads, no telegraphs, 
almost no corporations. Above all, as we have seen, 
the United States Constitution was framed with a view 
to prevent the government from " doing things," hence 
it is not surprising that now our constitutions do not 
allow us to do what we need to do. 
Remedies What is to be done? Must we have a hopeless dead- 

lock between the will of the people and the decisions 
of the courts? So far as laws have been poorly drawn 
the answer is easy, pass new ones which are better 
drawn. So far as the " reactionary decisions " are the 
fault of narrow-minded judges, discussion and criticism 
are doing much to improve conditions. Some short- 
sighted defenders of the courts think that whatever a 
court decides ought to be accepted as right. They seem 
to believe that a judge can do no wrong or that, if he 
does do wrong, it is unwise to mention it for fear of 
lessening respect for the courts. When the famous 
Dred Scott decision was made, Abraham Lincoln 
showed very clearly that while he did not wish to oppose 
the decision so far as it decided the particular case of 
Dred Scott, he opposed it absolutely as a " precedent 
or authority," that is, as a rule " to indicate to the 
public how other similar cases will be decided when they 
arise." He criticised severely its logic as doing " obvi- 
ous violence to the plain, unmistakable language of. the 



criticism 



DEMOCRACY AND THE COURTS 263 

Declaration." He refused to accept the decision as a 
settled doctrine for the country: 

We believe ... in obedience to and respect for the 
judicial department of government. We think its de- 
cisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled 
should control not only the particular cases decided, but 
the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed 
only by amendments of the Constitution, as provided in 
that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. 
But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We 
know the Court that made it has often overruled its own 
decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule 
this. 

Former President Taft was at one time a federal Discussion 
judge. He has many times defended courts and judges. and 
He is regarded by many as the most conservative emi- 
nent representative of the independence of the courts. 
On the importance of criticising the courts he has 
written as follows : 

The opportunity freely and publicly to criticize judicial 
action is of vastly more importance to the body politic 
than the immunity of courts and judges from unjust 
aspersions and attack. Nothing tends more to render 
judges careful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous 
to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act 
of theirs is to be subjected to the intelligent scrutiny and 
candid criticism of their fellow-men. {Present Day Prob- 
lems, 291.) 

Professor Goodnow, in his very careful study called Professor 
Social Reform and the Constitution, shows that, on the Goodnow's 
whole, the United States Supreme Court has been more view 
liberal than the state courts. At the same time, he 
points out that while the state constitutions can be 
amended without great difficulty, it is almost impossi- 



264 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

ble to amend the Federal Constitution. This Constitu- 
tion, he holds, probably does prevent us from securing 
some of the social reforms which we need and which 
other countries provide. He says: 

" It is believed, that there are few persons having the 
welfare of this country really at heart or not blinded by 
prejudice or class-interest, who will assert that the condi- 
tions of the American people are so peculiar that we should 
close for them the avenues open to other peoples through 
which orderly and progressive social development in accord- 
ance with changing economic and social conditions may 
proceed. Few can refrain from asking the question why 
Americans alone of all peoples should be denied the possi- 
bility of political and social change (p. 333)." 

One measure which he suggests is " that no court 
shall decide an act of a legislative body to be unconsti- 
tutional, unless the decision is reached by the unanimous 
action of the members of the court or by the action of 
any majority that might be determined upon." But 
the main remedy for decisions which give so rigid a 
meaning to the Constitution as to prevent reasonable 
change is discussion and criticism. After referring to 
various criticisms, he says: 

" In these days of rapid economic and social change, when 
it is more necessary than ever before that our law should 
be flexible and adapt itself with reasonable celerity to the 
changing phenomena of life, it is on this criticism amply 
justified by our history that we must rely if we are to 
hope for that orderly and progressive development which 
we regard as characteristic of modern civilization." 

It scarcely need be added that criticism is not just 
the same thing as faultfinding. Criticism implies point- 
ing out both the good and the bad and giving reasons so 



DEMOCRACY AND THE COURTS 265 

that reasonable persons can judge whether the critic 
is right. Faultfinding seldom does any good. Genuine 
criticism which aims to get at the truth and to bring 
out clearly what is for the public good is welcomed by 
intelligent and progressive men. 

Another method proposed for making the will of Recall of 
the people prevail in certain cases where the courts have decision s 
decided that a given law is unconstitutional is the " re- 
call of decisions." This would refer certain types of 
laws, passed for the general welfare, but declared un- 
constitutional by a state court, to a vote of the people 
for final determination. The proposal of this method 
came in a political campaign, and the plan was as vio- 
lently denounced by one party as it was strongly fa- 
vored by the other. Since the proposal and discussion 
of this plan, an amendment to the New York constitu- 
tion has been adopted which is in its idea almost pre- 
cisely a recall of the famous Ives decision declaring the 
workman's compensation law unconstitutional. For it 
does not change anything that was in the constitution 
of New York, but only provides how this shall be inter- 
preted. It says, " Nothing contained in this constitu- 
tion shall be construed to limit the power of the 
Legislature to enact laws for the protection of the 
lives, or safety of employees ; or for the payment . . . 
of compensation for injuries, etc." The adoption of 
this amendment indicates a method of changing the 
interpretation of constitutions according to our cus- 
tomary method of proceeding, that is, by amending the 
constitution. 

More important, as showing the ability of the people The Con- 
to secure what they strongly and persistently desire, has stitution 
been the recent adoption of two amendments to the can f , 
Federal Constitution, the one providing for the direct 



266 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

election of senators by the people of their states, the 
other providing for the power of Congress to levy an 
income tax. Both these amendments are strongly dem- 
ocratic. The first makes the senators much more 
directly representatives of the people. It therefore 
overthrows the idea of the makers of the Constitution 
that the senators should be chosen by the legislatures. 
The Income Tax amendment and the Income Tax law 
make it possible to raise a part of the revenue for 
carrying on the government by a tax upon those who 
are best able to pay it. During the Civil War the 
United States Government raised money by this form 
of tax. The Supreme Court had held it to be constitu- 
tional, although the language of the Constitution might 
be regarded as doubtful. But when such a law pro- 
viding for a tax on incomes was passed by Congress 
again in 1894, the court, by a vote of five to four, de- 
clared it to be unconstitutional. The Sixteenth Amend- 
ment * gives clearly to the Congress a power which, 
according to the view of the court, the makers of the 
Constitution had not intended to grant. 

These amendments may compel us to change our 
view as to the impossibility of amending the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. The only important amend- 
ments before these had been (1) the series adopted 
almost immediately to secure the liberties and rights 
which some feared were threatened by the new Consti- 
tution; and (2) the series adopted at the close of the 
Civil War to make slavery impossible and secure equal 
rights to all. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amend- 



* " The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on 
incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment 
among the several states and without regard to any census or 
enumeration." 



DEMOCRACY AND THE COURTS 267 

ments show that democracy, even in times of peace, may 
compel change if the country is really in earnest, al- 
though many very likely voted for the Income Tax 
with the fear that if this were not passed a revolution 
might come. 



CHAPTER XXVII 

DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY— GOVERNMENT 
FOR THE PEOPLE 



Largest 
meaning 
of democ- 
racy 



Who 
should 
have the 
best 
things ? 



THE finest and largest meaning of democracy is 
that all people should share as largely as pos- 
sible in the best life. This is a view not so 
much about government itself as about what govern- 
ment is for. It is indeed closely connected with the 
idea of self-government, because, as we have said, one 
of the greatest factors in the best life is to be free 
and responsible, — that is, to govern oneself. But there 
are many other things besides self-government which 
belong in good life. Education is one of them. Enough 
wealth to keep us well-fed, well-clothed, and warm, to 
provide us comforts, and to enable us to share these 
with our friends, is another. Recreation to give our 
minds and bodies free opportunity for change and 
growth, and to keep us from growing old too fast is 
another. Good books, good music, beautiful pictures, 
noble buildings, the opportunity to enjoy trees, open 
fields, and splendid mountains, are for many among 
the choicest of goods. " If I had two loaves of bread," 
said Mahomet, " I would sell one and buy a hyacinth 
to feed my soul." 

As to all these good things, two very different views 
have been held. The one is that these best things 
should be for a few. The other is that they should be 
for all. The first view is that of Inequality. The 
second view is that of Equality. The first view was 

268 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 269 

called in ancient times the view of " oligarchy," or 
" aristocracy." The second view was called " democ- 
racy." These words do not mean exactly the same as 
inequality and equality. They mean government by 
a few (oligarchy), government by the best (aristoc- 
racy), and government by the mass of the people after 
taking out the "few best" (democracy). Yet the 
words inequality- and equality were very soon connected 
with these theories of government. For it was taken 
as a matter of course that if the few (whether they were 
those of special birth or those who were wealthy) were 
governing, they would govern for their own advantage; 
while if the many, who were usually poor, were govern- 
ing, they would govern for their own advantage. 

Why should any one wish to limit good things to a The 
small class? We know that persons often are selfish; view of 
but most persons would not wish to set selfishness up ine( l ualit y 
as an ideal or as a general policy. Most men would 
say that it would be a fine thing if all could have health, 
education, and means of enjoyment. Yet there have 
always been certain persons who have held strongly to 
the theory of inequality. Some of them have been very 
eminent. How can we explain it? There are perhaps 
four principal reasons which have been in their minds. 

The first reason would be a very good one against (1) Men 
certain forms of the theory of equality. It is that differ in 
men are very different in their capacities. Some men, ca P aci v 
it is claimed, are never capable of enjoying books, 
music, good clothes, travel, study; and especially it is 
claimed that they are not capable of governing them- 
selves. It is foolish to waste these goods upon them. 
If they try to govern themselves they make a mess of 
it. They cannot manage a business or a farm and make 
a success of it; how absurd to suppose that they can 



270 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



(2) Eace 
prejudice 
and 
conquest 



manage the business of the whole country or of a city ! 
They should be given the necessaries of life in some 
way. The older way was by a system of slavery. The 
modern way should be by daily wages, sufficient to keep 
them in comfort. The great philosopher of Greece, 
Aristotle, the man who laid the foundations of most of 
our various sciences, sincerely believed that some men 
are not capable of directing themselves and therefore 
can best be cared for as slaves. Of course he did not 
mean that they should be cruelly treated. He thought 
such slavery would be best for both classes. 

This we may call the theory of natural inequality. 
Men are unequal by nature. God has made them so, 
or, at any rate, they are born so and it cannot be 
helped. In early times this theory of natural inequality 
was generally connected with clannishness. Greeks 
thought that other people were " barbarians " and not 
so good as Greeks. Jews thought that the Gentiles 
were not so good as Jews. Christians thought that 
Pagans or Heathen were inferior. Normans thought 
that the English were not gentlemen. 

The second reason why men have held the doctrine 
of inequality has been the old prejudice of the clan 
added to the military fact of conquest. This is rooted 
very deep. It seems to show even among animals ; a 
dog that has whipped another carries his head proudly 
and the whipped dog puts his tail between his legs. 
The small boy who has triumphed over a boy from 
another gang feels much like the successful dog, espe- 
cially if he had an easy victory. He feels that the 
other boy isn't quite in his " class." Peoples have felt 
much the same way. In history we read over and over 
again of how one race or group conquers another and 
reduces it to a lower class even if it does not make its 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 271 

people slaves. When the Normans conquered England 
they took the view that every Norman was a gentleman 
and that the English as a class were " simple " or 
" common." The word " native " was used to mean a 
serf. In ancient Greece, the Spartans, a very warlike 
group, conquered the older inhabitants and ever after 
kept them in a state of inferiority. They called them 
Helots and looked upon them with great contempt. 
Sometimes the difference in color falls in with difference 
in fighting ability. The negro race have never been 
very good fighters. This has no doubt added to the 
prejudice against them felt by some. On the other 
hand, the American Indians were, in most cases, remark- 
able as fighters, and hence a certain romantic admira- 
tion for their bravery has tended to counterbalance 
prejudice arising from difference in color. The Jap- 
anese stand higher in general respect among Europeans 
since their war with Russia. 

The third explanation for the view of inequality is (3) Not 
that in the past there has usually not been " enough enough 
to go around." In all human history until the Indus- for a11 
trial Revolution the great mass of men had to 
work hard and long in order to get the bare means of 
existence. It had not been possible for many to have 
books or leisure, to enjoy comforts, or to have educa- 
tion. It is only the recent inventions and the more 
efficient way pf working by cooperation that make 
possible so much education and so many of the com- 
forts of life as we can now enjoy. In early times the 
only way in which any one at all could have leisure was 
that some one else should support him. In Athens the , 

citizens who made the beautiful buildings and statues, 
who wrote the tragedies and comedies and song, who 
carried on the government, who laid the foundations 



272 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

of our sciences, did not expect to do much manual 
work. They might have farms, but labor of most 
sorts was performed by slaves. The early settlers of 
America had little leisure. They worked from early 
until late, not because any one was oppressing them, 
but simply because it was impossible to get a living 
in any other way. If there isn't enough to go around, 
it may plausibly be said it is better that some one 
should have leisure for writing poems, painting pic- 
tures, studying, and teaching, than that there should 
be no books, no pictures, no science, and no schools. 
(4) Prizes A fourth reason that some offer for inequality is 
stimulate that to strive for prizes stimulates men to do their best. 
And we cannot give prizes without both recognizing 
differences and making these differences conspicuous. 
Recognition of differences and admiration for excellence 
are very widespread both in savage and in civilized life. 
Among the American Indians a man who had per- 
formed special feats of courage or strength could wear 
an eagle's feather. In the army the lieutenant, captain, 
colonel, general, have each a distinctive uniform. This 
is of course partly in order that it may be seen at once 
whether they have a right to command. But it is partly 
also a reward for distinguished service. In the field 
of education those who graduate from college receive 
a " degree," such as " bachelor of arts." Those who 
go on with further study receive further degrees, such 
as " doctor of medicine " or " doctor of philosophy." 
These are in part to show whether one is competent 
to be a physician or a teacher, but they are also re- 
garded as honors. In the earlier days in all our public 
schools spelling was usually taught orally, and it was 
the custom that when one missed a word he should go 
to the foot of the class. To be at the head of the 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 273 

spelling class was an honor which made many a boy 
or girl work hard to master the difficult words. 

Now it may be said that good clothes, a fine house, 
an automobile, and all the other attractive things which 
money can buy, are prizes. The power which a railroad 
president or banker or manufacturer has is a prize. 
It stimulates men to work harder if they have such a 
prize to look forward to. It stimulates invention. It 
makes men keen to discover the most efficient ways to 
carry on their business. In other words, it is a part 
of the general competitive idea. We cannot have prizes 
and competition without inequality. 

Here, then, are four reasons for inequality. Let us View of 
now hear what is to be said for equality. equality 

And first as to facts. Are men naturally unequal (1) Men 
or naturally equal? The Declaration of Independence are not 
says flatly, " We hold these truths to be self-evident, so unequal 
that all men are created equal." Is this so? We have 
seen that the view of " natural inequality " is that 
men are naturally unequal. Isn't this common sense? 
Is it not evident that if you take any dozen persons 
you meet on the street they are very different in ability, 
to say nothing of comparing Sir Isaac Newton or 
Shakespere or the author of Job with an Esquimau or 
a native Australian? 

Before answering this question we notice that al- 
though in early days Jews and Greeks despised others, 
it was yet a Jew who wrote " God created man in his 
own image," without making any distinctions. It was 
a Greek who wrote, " We are his offspring," and a Jew 
with Greek education that wrote, " He [God] made of 
one every nation of men." It was a Roman, Cicero, 
who said over and over, " Men are equal," " There is 
nothing so like, so equal, as we all are, one with an- 



274 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

other. Reason is common to us all, we have the same 
senses ; we differ in knowledge, we are equal in capacity 
to learn; we are similar not only in ability to know 
what is right but in our ways of going wrong." 

It was an English philosopher, Hobbes, defending 
the power of the king, who said : 

" Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the 
body and minds; as that though there be found one man 
sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or quicker in mind 
than another, yet when all is reckoned together, the differ- 
ence between man and man, is not so considerable, as that 
one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to 
which another may not pretend, as well as he. For as to 
the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to 
kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by con- 
federacy with others that are in the same danger with 
himself." 

The church maintained that in the sight of God the 
little differences which appear so important to us do 
not count. But it was the philosopher, Locke, who 
was nearest to the men who wrote our Declaration of 
Independence. He describes a state of nature which is 
first a state of freedom, and then 

" A state also of equality, wherein all the power and 
jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one has more than another, 
there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the 
same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same 
advantages of Nature, and the use of the same faculties, 
should also be equal one amongst another." 

We can see, then, that Jefferson and his fellows had 
many authorities to uphold their claim that " all men 
are created equal." But none the less we ask what 
did they mean by it ? They probably meant chiefly that 
men are at any rate not divided into two classes, one 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 275 

of which has a right to rule the other. They probably 
meant to protest against the view that just because 
a man is of royal blood he has a divine right to rule 
other persons, without any regard to whether he is 
wiser and better than they. They went on to urge 
that governments were formed to secure rights for men. 
They meant this as a contrast to the view that certain 
men, just because of their birth, have a right to govern 
others. They probably had no intention to deny that 
some men would be better than others for rulers. They 
had not long before chosen Washington to be general. 
They did this because they thought he was the best 
man, and no doubt they thought that in this respect 
he was not exactly equal to all the rest. In his dis- 
cussion of the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln has told 
what he thinks the authors of the Declaration meant : 

" They did not intend to declare all men equal in all 
respects. They did not mean to say that all were equal 
in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social 
capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what 
respects they did consider all men created equal, — equal 
with ' certain inalienable rights among which are life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' " 

So much, then, for the claim of equality by nature. 
It means, first, that men are not so different that any 
one class can claim the right always to rule another, or 
to be supported by another, or to claim for itself 
everything above the necessaries of life. It holds that 
men are equal in rights to at least life, and liberty, and 
happiness, even though they may not always find hap- 
piness in just the same ways. 

The second motive which has led men to uphold the 
doctrine of inequality was stated to be: It is natural 



276 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



(2) Race 
and class 
prejudice 
are crude 



(3) Inven- 
tion is 
making 
enough 
to go 
round 



(4) Not 
all care 
for prizes 



to despise outsiders and conquered peoples or races. 
The advocates of equality claim that although this 
explains why men have been treated as inferiors, it is 
not a good reason why they should be so treated now 
and in future. Many natural ways of acting — for ex- 
ample, taking revenge upon those who injure us — we 
have replaced by better methods. Race prejudice and 
class pride are natural, but they are crude and stupid 
attributes. And as for conquest in war, this was no 
doubt at one time the most prominent mark of ability. 
But now when we need so many kinds of talents — in 
invention, science, art, music ; and so many moral quali- 
ties — such as honesty, fairness, and kindness — it 
shows a narrow mind to despise others merely because 
we are physically stronger than they, or can shoot 
straighter, or even because we are braver in battle. 
There are other ways of showing courage and power 
than by killing people. 

The third argument is also losing its force. Once, 
it is true, there was not enough to go around. The 
only way to have art and music and schools, the only 
way to have beautiful houses and temples and all the 
things which make civilization as contrasted with 
savage life, was by having the many support the few 
without sharing in any of the good things. Now, 
however, with the great inventions of machinery, of 
steam and water power, and with the great increase 
in production which comes when men work together, 
there is no need of this older method. We are now, it 
is claimed, producing enough to keep us all in decent 
comfort if we could only " pass prosperity around." 

The fourth reason given for inequality was that it 
is a stimulus, and men need prizes in order that they 
may do their best. This is flatly denied by some. 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 277 

They claim that it is all wrong to be thinking of prizes. 
For example, in school, who is the real scholar, the boy 
who is trying to work the problem simply to beat the 
other fellow, or the boy who has a real interest in 
mathematics? We can scarcely think that a very great 
scholar cares very much about getting ahead of some 
rival. Newton wanted to discover the truth about the 
movements of the earth and planets. Pasteur wanted 
to discover what was spoiling the grapes, and in that 
way began those investigations which led to the germ 
theory of disease. Lazear and Reed wanted to find 
out the causes of yellow fever in order to save life. 
Surely this desire to know is a far nobler motive than 
the desire to get ahead of some one else and to wear 
some kind of a decoration, whether it is an eagle's 
feather or a particular kind of title or dress. It is 
claimed that this desire for some kind of prize is a 
rather childish or savage desire. We should get over 
this desire as we grow up and become more civilized. 
Kipling has put it finely from the point of view of the 
artist: 

And only the Master shall praise us, and only the Master 

shall blame; 
And no one shall work for money, and no one shall work 

for fame, 
But each for the joy of the working, and each, in his 

separate star, 
Shall draw the Thing as he sees It for the God of Things 

as They Are! 

— Kipling's L' Envoi. 

So far we have merely answered arguments for in- Positive 
equality. Are there any positive arguments for equal- values of 
ity? It is no doubt true that instinct for power and equa 1 y 
mastery is deep rooted in men. Is there any correspond- 



278 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Which is 
right? 



Why men 
differ in 
capacity 



ing instinct for equality? There certainly is. Not 
only do we resent the attitude of superiority in another ; 
we secretly are uncomfortable ourselves if we take this 
attitude persistently. We cannot talk freely with 
others unless there is give and take. If we are to be 
friends with others, we must drop out all thought of 
superiority or inferiority and meet on a common level. 
One of the great satisfactions in belonging to a club 
is that the members, as members, are all equal. One 
man may be richer than another or more learned, but as 
club members they have equal privileges. No one in 
a club is permitted to give tips to servants because 
this would tend to give some members better service 
than others. Again, equality before the law is the first 
step toward justice. The great religions have pro- 
claimed that all men are equal in the sight of God. 
As sons of God, men are brethren. A great religious 
teacher held up as the ideal a community in which 
there should be neither Greek nor Jew, bond nor free. 
Good society, friendship, clubs, law, and religion, all 
of them recognize the value of equality. What is the 
truth of the matter? Which party is right? Which 
theory is the better guide to conduct, inequality or 
equality? Were our fathers right in declaring for 
equality, or were they mistaken? Is this doctrine of 
equality a part of our national ideal, or must we give 
it up? Let us look more carefully at each of the four 
points. 

First, as to the facts. There is no doubt that men 
as we find them are very unequal. But we have learned 
now to look a little deeper and ask, "Why"? Two 
answers can be given. (1) They are born so. They 
inherit ability or weakness and there is nothing to be 
done about it. Some stocks or races are very much 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 279 

superior to others. (2) The great difference in men 
is due not so much to their birth as to what happens 
to them after they are born, due to their home, their 
food, their schools, and all the other opportunities or 
misfortunes which come to them. Professor Cattell 
has found that of one thousand leading men of science 
in the United States, one hundred and thirty-four were 
born in Massachusetts, three in Georgia, and that for 
each million of population Massachusetts and Con- 
necticut have had a hundred scientific men of high 
standing; the states of the Southern seaboard but two. 
No one can doubt that this means simply that boys in 
Massachusetts and Connecticut have had a better op- 
portunity than boys in Carolina or Georgia. The Ed- 
wards family, which has included a great number of 
conspicuous men, is a notable example of the fact 
that to be born from a sound and capable stock 
gives one a great advantage. Certain other stocks 
or strains are undoubtedly defective. But there 
are also a great many sound stocks or strains which 
have thus far produced few eminent men. In this 
country leaders are constantly coming up from the 
ranks. This tends to show that ability is more widely 
distributed than is sometimes supposed. Opportunity 
or the lack of it is very often what decides whether 
a man shall be eminent or remain as one of the great 
mass of people. The great point, however, is not 
whether men are now exactly equal or ever will be. The 
fundamental idea of democracy is that every one ought 
to have a chance to show what is in him. And the 
striking fact is that we cannot find out who the really 
great men are unless we give every man a chance. The 
fault with the old method of government for the benefit 
of a few was not only that it was selfish, but that it 



280 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Coopera- 
tion 
better 
than 

exclusive- 
ness 



did not select those who were really the best. If we 
think that men are born unequal in the sense that one 
class is born better than another, we shall trouble our- 
selves little about the supposedly inferior group. But 
if we think that every man should have a fair and 
equal chance, we shall be in the way of finding out who 
our real poets, inventors, scholars, and leaders are. 

As to the second point, it is no doubt true that we 
naturally do feel some superiority if we have won a 
victory. It is true that men are apt to think their 
own family or race or nation is better than that of the 
stranger. Is this wrong? We can see, if we look back 
a little, that this had a real reason in early times. It 
was the way in which the family or the clan or the 
tribe kept close together. And when men were forced 
to fight or be reduced to slavery, it was a fine trait to 
fight bravely. It went along with this that men de- 
spised those who were conquered. But while this feel- 
ing of class may have served a very useful purpose 
once, it is very stupid to continue the same feeling 
when it is no longer a help but a hindrance. It is stupid 
to act now as if we were still living in savage times. 
What men needed then was defense and separation. 
What men need now is to know each other, to trade 
with each other, and especially to find out the very 
best that there is in their neighbors. The only way 
to find out what is best in a man is to treat him as 
your equal. You will probably find that while you 
may be superior in one thing he is superior in some- 
thing else. In present society we get on by coopera- 
tion, by taking down bars between different countries, 
by exchanging goods and ideas, by being friendly and 
ready to learn. It is give and take. Democracy is a 
better road to progress than exclusiveness. 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 281 

We may pass over the third point as not needing 
further discussion, and come to the fourth, which is 
perhaps most important of all. Does democracy tend 
to reduce all men to a dead level? Does it level down 
instead of leveling up? Do men need the stimulus of 
rivalry to do their best work? Or can we depend upon 
joy in work, love of truth, and love of our fellow-men 
to bring out the best that is in men, and so produce 
the best society? 

There is no doubt that in some kinds of work men When 
need no prizes except the joy in the work itself, and rivalry is 
no motive but the love of their fellow-men. On the nee e 
other hand, it is true that some kinds of work are very 
disagreeable. Professor William James, who was a 
very keen observer, said, " Nine-tenths of the work of 
the world is done by it [rivalry]. We know that if we 
do not do the task some one else will do it and get the 
credit, so we do it." If all our work were of the kind 
Kipling was thinking of in the poem from which we 
quoted, if it were painting, or writing, or making taste- 
ful garments, or craftsman-like products, or cooking 
and serving meals skilfully and artistically, and if all 
this were done with good conditions and .with short 
hours so as to call out one's best energies without 
fatigue and exhaustion, then we should have less need 
of rivalry. If we, like Lister, who discovered aseptic 
surgery, could all see that our work was benefiting 
mankind, saving life, and preventing suffering, we 
should no doubt most of us find joy in doing it. But 
a great deal of our work does not seem to benefit others 
directly. It is a long way from the coal mine to the 
family which is kept warm by the miner's use of pick 
and shovel. It is difficult for the workman in the steel 
plant to see that he is helping the world. He can see 



282 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



When 
rivalry 
hinders 
progress 



only the metal and machinery and hear only the roar 
of the blast in the great furnace. He does not, like the 
physician or the teacher, deal directly with the people 
whom he serves. We probably cannot give up rivalry 
yet, but it is necessary to make the rivalry the right 
kind, if it is really to help progress and not hinder it. 
Rivalry hinders progress if it is of the selfish type, and 
if it fails to stimulate the right kind of activity. 

Suppose a man on the baseball team has made a 
home run or pitched a brilliant game. Do we not all 
feel a thrill of admiration for such a brilliant play, 
which leads us to cheer? We should feel that there 
was something wrong with us if we didn't want to 
honor the man. But suppose that in a race one man 
is sick and another has had no training. A strong, 
well-trained man would see no sport in winning from 
them. Much less would any man find honor in winning 
from another by a foul or by tripping him. It would not 
promote fast running to give prizes to men who win 
in these ways. In the game of life, as we play it at 
present, a great many are sick through no fault of their 
own; a great many have not been well-trained; they 
have had to leave school early, they have never had 
good surroundings at home ; they have not had the 
kind of education which fits them to succeed. There is 
not any honor in winning against them. And the more 
important point is that it does not promote best ways 
of doing business or of progress in any line, if we give 
prizes simply to those who succeed without making sure 
that it is a fair contest and that all who enter are in 
equally good condition. 

Equal opportunity is the necessary condition for 
progress — to get the benefit of prizes and honors we 
must first have equal opportunity. Just as in the 



DEMOCRACY AS EQUALITY 283 

race true honor comes from winning against those who 
are well-trained and thoroughly " fit," so in life true 
honor comes from winning where every one has a fair 
chance. Inequality is of benefit only if we first have 
equality of opportunity. 

Where all have a fair chance no one grudges success 
to the best man. Indeed the whole joy of the sport is 
in having the best man win. Every one who goes into 
the game feels that the game, after all, is a bigger 
thing than that he himself should win. It would not 
be a game at all if one were to win for any other reason 
than because he was the best man. In life, we feel no 
sting in seeing another man surpass us if we think that 
he is really more capable of doing what needs to be 
done. The good soldier did not feel it any disgrace 
to have Washington or Grant or Lee hold higher rank 
than himself. The army could win only if it had the 
best man at its head. But if the common soldier had 
thought that a man was appointed general because his 
grandfather had done something important, or because 
of favoritism, he would have been discouraged. Our 
country needs leaders in business, in government, in 
education, and in all lines. In this respect we are like 
an army. Hence we must have inequality. But we 
need to select our leaders and give our prizes and 
honors on the basis of real fitness. It may be that we 
shall have to change the rules of the game of life in 
order to make sure that those shall succeed who really 
deserve success. We have had to change the rules of 
football often in the last twenty-five years to prevent 
dirty play. Certainly it is true that we need to give 
every one a fair chance to compete on equal terms in 
living. Then we shall come nearer to what our fathers 
meant to have this country stand for. 



CHAPTER XXVIII 



PROGRESS AND TASK OF DEMOCRACY 



(1) 

Equality 
before 
the law 



Class 
legislation 



GREAT progress in democracy regarded as 
equality has been made since America was first 
settled. For convenience, we may separate dif- 
ferent kinds of equality, and speak — in order — of 
equality before the law, equality in voting, social equal- 
ity, equality in business opportunities, and equality in 
education. 

Equality before the law means that when a man is 
tried for any offense, the law asks only, " What have 
you done, and is this contrary to the law of the land? " 
It does not ask, " Are you a noble or are you a ' com- 
mon ' man? " In early times, as we have seen, it was a 
much greater offense for a serf to kill a lord than for 
a lord to kill a serf. This kind of inequality had been 
done away before America was settled. Men had, in 
theory, gained equal rights to life and liberty and to 
protection of property. The very idea of a law is that 
it is a general rule for all cases, and this requires 
that it shall treat all alike; this makes law a great 
force for democracy. Why, then, should many feel 
that they do not have an equal chance before the law? 
There are two main reasons. First, laws are sometimes 
made for the benefit of some special class instead of 
for the benefit of the whole country. Employers be- 
lieve that some laws are for the benefit of workingmen 
as a class, and workingmen think that some laws are 

384 



PROGRESS AND TASK OF DEMOCRACY 285 

for the benefit of employers as a class. As we have 
already seen, a law may be made primarily for some 
one class in order to benefit the whole country in the 
long run. This would be true of child-labor laws. 
But there is a general suspicion of " class legislation," 
and there is good reason for this suspicion. We need 
to be very sure that to protect the particular class is 
for the interest of the whole country. 

The second lack of equality before the law is due Legal 
to the need of hiring expert lawyers to present a case, expense 
It is easy to see that if one party in a suit has a very 
good lawyer and the other party a poor lawyer, the 
first party has the better chance of winning. Orig- 
inally, a man who was accused of crime was not allowed 
to have any counsel or lawyer to represent him. We 
have outgrown that, but there is a great difference in 
lawyers, and usually the best lawyers require large 
fees. A judge is said to have remarked to a disap- 
pointed contestant in a suit, " How can you expect to 
get justice in this court if you don't have a good 
lawyer? " The general theory is that it is fairest to 
both sides to let each present his case as strongly as 
he can. Then the judge and jury decide. But this 
method evidently does not always result in a right 
decision. The problem of securing more perfect equal- 
ity before the law is not yet solved. It is one of the 
" unsettled questions " for the citizens and especially 
for the lawyers to work out. 

In England, as we have seen, only a very small part (2) 
of the people could vote for members of Parliament Equality 
until the great change in qualifications which was made 
in 1832, and it is still possible in England for a man 
to vote two or three times in different parts of the 
country, if he owns property in these different districts. 



in 
voting 



286 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

One of the demands of English democracy at present 
is " one man, one vote." 

In the American colonies there were two kinds of 
qualifications for voting. The first kind included 
certain very necessary requirements of residence, age, 
and being " freemen." Those who voted in a town 
ought to live there, ought to be old enough to judge 
wisely, and ought to be responsible members of the 
community — a freeman meant substantially the same 
as a citizen. The Hartford freeman of 1703 must take 
an oath to be faithful to Queen Anne and to the gov- 
ernment of the colony: 

The " And whensoever you shall give your Vote or Suffrage 

Freeman's touching any matter which concerns this colony, being 
oath called there unto, you will give it, as in your conscience 

you shall judge may conduce to the best good of the same 
without respect of persons, or Favor of any Man, So Help 
You God. (Bishop's History of Elections in the American 
Colonies, pp. 260-61. )" 



Religious 
qualifica- 
tions 



A second type of requirements was imposed in most 
states. Under it came, in various states, religion, 
morals, property, race, color, and sex. Most qualifica- 
tions of this sort have been removed. Religious quali- 
fications were in general the first to be made and the 
first to disappear. Thus, in Massachusetts Bay, in 
order to vote it was at first necessary to belong to the 
Puritan Church, but in 1691 no rule is found in the 
Charter which would limit the right to church mem- 
bers. In many of the colonies Catholics were not 
allowed to vote; Quakers and Jews were excluded in 
others. By the time of the Revolution practically all 
religious qualifications had disappeared. 

Property qualifications were established early and 



PROGRESS AND TASK OF DEMOCRACY 287 

lasted longer than religious qualifications. In Vir- 
ginia, for example, all inhabitants could vote until 
1655. After this there were various requirements in Property 
the colony and the state, rising as high, in 1736, as one qu allfic a- 
hundred acres of uncultivated land or twenty-five of 
cultivated. The property qualification was not abol- 
ished till the middle of the nineteenth century. In the 
New England colonies there was at first no property 
qualification, but from about the middle of the seven- 
teenth century requirements of landowning or of other 
property were general. The highest requirement was 
probably that in Rhode Island, where " a freeman must 
be a freeholder of lands, tenements, and hereditaments " 
to the value of four hundred pounds, or an income of 
twenty pounds a year. In South Carolina the pro- 
vision was that none should have a vote for members 
of Parliament " that hath less than fifty acres of 
freehold within the said precincts," and this fifty-acre 
qualification was followed in eight other states. Mr. 
Frederick Cleveland, who has studied these qualifica- 
tions, believes that they were imposed in most cases 
by the charters. They appeared in New England about 
the time when the royal commission was appointed to 
secure uniform qualifications for electors. After the 
Declaration of Independence, practically all the original 
states had property qualifications. But beginning with 
Maryland in 1810, closely followed by New York in 
1821 and Massachusetts in 1822, these were gradually 
abolished. South Carolina kept its requirement until 
1865. In some cases taxation took the place of prop- 
erty. It was thought that those who had to pay taxes, 
and only those, should have the right to vote, but this 
qualification, too, has been largely given up. The new 
states to the northwest had few, if any, restrictions. 



288 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

They were far more democratic than the older states. 
The influence of the frontier was felt in this as in so 
many other ways. 
Color Restrictions on the basis of color naturally went 

restric- along with slavery. In all the colonies there were 
tions among the early immigrants some " indentured serv- 

ants." These were not slaves, but men who were 
held to work for a certain number of years. Such 
servants were not allowed to vote, whether white or 
black, but there was no colonial law in the North to 
prevent any free negro from voting. In the South, 
slavery was always a bar, and twenty-three states lim- 
ited voters to " white male citizens." The Fifteenth 
Amendment to the Federal Constitution, adopted in 
1870, abolished this qualification of color. It reads: 

" The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall 
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any 
state on account of race, color, or previous condition of 
servitude." 

Equal The restriction of voting to males was a matter of 

suffrage course in the early history of the country. From the 
very nature of the state in early times, women would 
scarcely be thought of as belonging to it, for at first 
the nation was a band of warriors. Its purpose was 
conquest. Later it enforced order and governed trade, 
but it had practically none of the duties which would 
especially interest women, so long as the earlier division 
of labor between men and women continued. In the 
early part of the nineteenth century, along with the 
growth of democracy in other lines, agitation began for 
woman's suffrage. The claim was at first based almost 
entirely upon the idea of an equal right. Those who 
sought the ballot for women felt that to be deprived 



PROGRESS AND TASK OF DEMOCRACY 289 

of the ballot was a stigma. It seemed humiliating to 
be classed with slaves, minors, criminals, and idiots. 
The Western States have shown again the influence 
of the frontier, for they have been far more radical in 
granting suffrage to women than the East, although 
in school elections most of the Northern States have 
woman's suffrage. Arizona, California, Colorado, 
Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wash- 
ington, and Wyoming have granted suffrage to women. 
Some time ago Illinois granted partial suffrage to 
women, and she has recently been followed in this by 
a large group of other states. 

It is noteworthy that arguments for extending the 
suffrage to women have changed in emphasis. It is 
now maintained by the advocates of suffrage that on 
the one hand government, and particularly city gov- 
ernment, is doing so many things which were formerly 
under home control, such as disposal of waste, regula- 
tion of health, milk, food, education, and protection 
of children, that women have a duty to take part in 
government. And again, it is claimed that as women 
themselves have been obliged to leave home so largely 
and enter into business life and factories, they are 
more immediately concerned with government than in 
earlier times. The case is now discussed not so much 
on the basis of equality of rights as upon that of 
equality of needs and duties. 

The early settlers of the country brought with them (3) Social 
many of the Old World customs and ideas as to social equality 
rank. Some of these were soon modified by life in a 
new country. The man who could shoot straight or 
chop down a tree with strong and sure strokes was 
certain to be respected. Nevertheless, many of the old 
distinctions died hard, especially in the region near 



290 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

the coast. In New England, pews in church were as- 
signed by a committee appointed to " dignify the 
meeting-house," that is, to seat each family in its proper 
position. The names of Harvard College students were 
printed in the catalogue according to their social rank. 
In New York, many great families had been given large 
tracts of land. The heads of these families were looked 
up to almost like the lords of the manor in England. 
Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia, was more demo- 
cratic; but in the South, Virginia and South Carolina 
were settled by English gentry to a considerable extent, 
and the large plantations kept up social distinctions. 
Professor McLaughlin quotes from the Life of Devereuz 
Jarrett, who lived in Virginia in the middle of the 
eighteenth century: 

" We were accustomed to look upon what were called 
gentlefolks as beings of a superior order. For my part, I 
was quite shy of them, and kept off at a humble distance. 
A perriwig, in those days, was a distinguishing badge of 
gentlefolk, — and when I saw a man riding the road near 
our house, with a wig on, it would so alarm my fears, and 
give me such a disagreeable feeling, that I dare say, I 
would run off, as for my life. Such ideas of the difference 
between gentle and simple were, I believe, universal among 
all of my rank and age. But I have lived to see a vast 
alteration, in this respect, and the contrary extreme pre- 
vail. In our high republican times, there is more levelling 
than ought to be, consistent with good government. I have 
as little notion of oppression and tyranny as any man, 
but a due subordination is essentially requisite in every 
government. ... In theory, it is certainly superior; but 
in practice it is not so. This can arise from nothing so 
much as the want of a proper distinction between the 
various orders of the people." 

The original settlers who brought these class dis- 
tinctions were largely English. A new set of immi- 



PROGRESS AND TASK OF DEMOCRACY 291 

grants in the middle of the eighteenth century, Scotch, 
Irish, and German, were more democratic. They 
came from poorer classes in the Old World, and they 
settled, not by the seaboard, where it was easier to 
keep Old World ideas, but on the frontier, in the wilder- 
ness, where it was natural to forget old distinctions 
and make a new beginning. The following quotation 
from Professor Turner's famous address on The Sig- 
nificance of the Frontier in American Life applies to 
all lines of the growth of democracy, but it is peculiarly 
appropriate to social class distinctions : 

" The wilderness masters the colonist. It finds him a 
European in dress, industries, tools, modes of travel, and 
thought. It takes him from the railroad car and puts him 
in the birch canoe. It strips off the garments of civiliza- 
tion, and arrays him in the hunting shirt and the moc- 
casin. It puts him in the log cabin of the Cherokee and 
the Iroquois, and runs an Indian palisade around him. 
Before long he has gone to planting Indian corn and 
plowing with a sharp stick; he shouts the war cry and 
takes the war scalp in orthodox Indian fashion. In short, 
at the frontier the environment is at first too strong for 
the man. He must accept the conditions which it fur- 
nishes, or perish, and so he fits himself into the Indian 
clearings and follows the Indian trails. Little by little 
he transforms the wilderness, but the outcome is not the 
old Europe, not simply the development of Germanic 
germs, any more than the first phenomenon was a case 
of reversion to the Germanic mark. The fact is that here 
is a new product that is American." 

fThe Revolution was a great force for democracy. Jefferson's 
When men had to get together for common defense democracy 
and fight side by side for years, class distinctions suf- 
fered. And the great ideas of equality and self-govern- 
ment, which the Declaration of Independence had 
presented, could not fail to have a general effect. In 



292 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

Virginia, after the great Declaration had been adopted, 
Jefferson entered his state legislature and induced 
it to pass several measures of a democratic sort. 
First, was the doing away with entails. An entail is 
a particular form of transmitting property. If a man 
gives his son a piece of land without any restrictions, 
this would be called fee-simple; if he gives it to his 
son and his son's heirs and to their heirs, this would 
be a limited gift. It would be given in " fee-tail." In 
this case the son would have no right to sell the land, 
because it had been given to his children as well as to 
himself, and the children would have no right to sell 
it; it would have to stay in the same family. Hence, 
an entail would tend to keep the land in the hands of 
the same families from generation to generation, and 
so to keep up class distinctions. Another part of 
Jefferson's program was to abolish " primogeniture," 
that is, the rule that the oldest son should inherit all 
the landed property, instead of having it equally 
divided among all the children. Primogeniture, like 
entail, tended to keep up class distinctions. Abolition 
of slavery and provision for public schools were other 
items in Jefferson's scheme, but these he was not able 
to carry through. 

It was, however, the great growth of the country to 
the New West which swept away the old family distinc- 
tions. Indeed, in the frontier towns it was often consid- 
ered a breach of etiquette to ask what a man's name had 
been before he came West. All that was asked was that 
he should behave himself while there. The pioneer set 
a higher value upon what a man could do than upon 
who his grandfather had been. 
New But while one set of forces has been breaking down 

problems \d c l ass distinctions, a new force has been at work to 



PROGRESS AND TASK OF DEMOCRACY 293 

introduce a different sort of class distinctions — the 
force of the Industrial Revolution. In early days there 
were a few wealthy men among the great landowners 
and planters. George Washington was one of the 
largest landowners. It is very instructive to see at 
Mount Vernon the various buildings that were neces- 
sary for a large estate. Besides the " mansion " was 
the office, the carriage-house, the kitchen, the milk 
house, the meat house, the ice house, the wash house, 
the butler's house, the porter's lodge. The growth of 
great cotton plantations made a separation not only 
between the master and slave, but also between the rich 
planter and the poor white. But, since the Civil War, 
it is the great growth of manufacturing, transporta- 
tion, and commerce which has been the chief factor in 
separating people into classes. It is not the mere 
difference in wealth between the capitalist and the la- 
borer; it is partly the difference in race and education 
and manner of life. Our classes are not fixed as they 
are in Europe. Nevertheless they exist. City life 
practically compels the poor to live in a region where 
rents are low. This keeps the poor together. The 
rich live together in another part. The poor live close 
by the factory, where its smoke and often its smells 
are a constant depressing influence. The rich owners 
can afford to live at a distance and usually do so. This 
is a strongly undemocratic force. 

On the other hand, a new democracy has been born Democracy 
from another aspect of the Industrial Revolution. Just in 
as the workers have learned union, so they have learned or g anized 
equality. For the association of such a great number 
of workers in factories and shops has brought them to 
feel that, among themselves at least, there must be 
equality. Sometimes this has taken the form of an 



294 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



(4) 

Equality 
in 

business 
oppor- 
tunities 



equal wage, but it almost always has involved some 
sacrifice on behalf of the ablest workmen. • These could 
usually get higher wages for themselves if they would 
not trouble themselves about the affairs of their fel- 
lows. But they have felt that the welfare of the 
working class as a whole was more important than their 
own individual success. This democracy of labor has by 
no means been complete. Unskilled workmen have fre- 
quently gained little by the efforts of the more skilled 
who have formed labor unions. The problem of lifting 
the unskilled to a better position by education, by 
organization, or by other means, is one of the great 
problems of democracy at present. 

Equality in business opportunities became a serious 
problem when the railroads came to be the great means 
of transportation. Until then there were, to be sure, 
sometimes private toll roads and toll bridges, but there 
were also public highways and canals, and one merchant 
could get his goods transported for him at about the 
same rate as his neighbor. The railroads introduced 
a new power. They could make a cheaper rate to one 
city than to another, or to one merchant than another. 
They could give passes to some and withhold them 
from others. In 1869 the Supreme Court of Iowa held 
that a railroad was private property and so could act 
as it pleased. But complaints of business men that 
they were not having an equal chance with their rivals 
led Congress, finally, in 1887, to establish an Interstate 
Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates and 
secure fair play. At first this commission had small 
power, but in 1906 it was given power to fix the 
minimum rate, and in 1910 it was given still greater 
power. It has worked toward equality of opportunity. 
Other measures to restrain monopoly and unfair com- 



PROGRESS AND TASK OF DEMOCRACY 295 

petition, and thus maintain equality of opportunity 
were enacted by Congress in 1914. 

We have already spoken of education as one of the (5) 
main conditions of liberty. It is also a need of democ- Equality 
racy. America has been more democratic in this field , .. 
than in some others. 

As we trace the growth of democracy we can see one Present 
great change in emphasis. There has been a nearly task 
constant movement away from the old ideas of inequal- 
ity which grew out of military conquest, and differences 
in birth between classes. The first steps of democracy 
were to rise above these long-time barriers. The great 
declarations of rights were directed against old privi- 
leges. They proclaimed to favored classes, " You are 
no better than I." This was a necessary first step. 

But to say that men are equal doesn't make them 
so. The great task of the present day is to make good 
in fact what our fathers claimed in words or cherished 
as an ideal. And, despite all that has been done to 
advance democracy, a great task remains. We have 
seen that some insist that inequality is necessary for 
progress. Yet few, if any, in America will object to 
equality, if it means leveling up and not leveling down. 
What is feared by some is that democracy must always 
mean leveling down. It is urged that people do not 
want expert leaders, that they will prefer for high 
office a man who claims that he is no better than the 
average rather than one who knows how to govern. 
This is doubtless sometimes the case. But the objection 
is a survival of the old and outworn fears of early 
days. True democracy means, not leveling down, but 
leveling up. Few, if any, in this country will object 
to giving every child the opportunity of as good an 
education as he can profit by. Few, if any, will object 



296 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

to growth of intelligence and improvement of the 
standard of living of all men. Even from the point of 
view of greater wealth and prosperity, the more en- 
lightened employers are coming to recognize that the 
cheapest and most ignorant labor is sometimes not the 
best. But, in a larger view, this country is committed 
to a great enterprise. It is making a great venture. 
It is trying to prove that democracy is possible. It 
is a nation " dedicated to the proposition that all men 
are created equal." It is dawning upon us more and 
more that to make men equal is not a task to be ful- 
filled on battle-fields. War can, at best, do away with 
burdens laid on men by others. It cannot remove the 
inequalities due to defective laws, to poverty, to 
ignorance, to vice, to bad influences, and to want of 
courage and high purpose. To deal with these sources 
of inequality is the greater task. 



CHAPTER XXIX 
THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 

ONE man alone could not live nobly and well. Why the 
One family or clan could not get very far nation? 
toward living a comfortable, free, and full 
life. It needs a larger group to provide many of the 
good things which we have. Our food, our clothes, 
our tools, our books, our laws which protect us, all 
require that many should cooperate, that is, work 
together. A nation is a group of people, large enough 
to make these and other good things possible ; it is made 
up of people who are enough alike to live under one 
government. 

In earlier times kings with armies would conquer 
many peoples and bring them under one empire, that is, 
under one command. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, 
Persia, Macedonia, Rome, one after another conquered 
all the peoples near them, and many distant peoples. 
These conquered peoples spoke many different lan- 
guages and did not unite with each other very inti- 
mately. However, the empire kept them at peace 
and so helped trade and made it possible for men to 
study, to learn, and discover many of the secrets of 
nature. They built beautiful buildings, made statues, 
painted pictures, composed music, and wrote books. 
But empires did not favor liberty and democracy. A 
nation made up of people who speak one language and 
have common interests and common sympathies is a 
better kind of union than the old empires. It is be- 

297 



298 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Why 
inter- 
national 
relations 



cause we believe that our country stands for liberty, 
union, and democracy that we love and revere it. 

But the full benefits of union and cooperation cannot 
be obtained if these are limited by national boundaries. 
Just as a clan or small group of people shut away 
from other people would not progress far, so a modern 
nation cannot get on well by itself. Some nations could 
not live at all without exchanging goods with other 
people. England is a rich nation, but it cannot raise 
enough grain and meat to supply all its people. It 
would starve, with all its money, if it could not get 
grain from other countries. The United States is so 
large a nation, and has so many kinds of soil and 
minerals, and such different climates in different re- 
gions, that it would not starve. But it would suffer 
in other ways. It needs the beautiful things made in 
France and Belgium, the chemicals of Germany, the 
fine cloth of Great Britain, the coffee and cocoa, and 
flowers from Holland and South America. It needs 
the music, the books, the ideas that other people pro- 
duce. In many ways we are living as neighbors to the 
whole world. We can send letters to nearly all parts 
of the earth where men live for less than it used 
to cost to send a letter a few miles, or than it wouldl 
even now cost to hire a boy to carry a message half 
a mile. We can send money safely; we can exchange 
with any who have what we want and want what we 
have. It is clear then that the real business of living 
will include living in a world with other nations and 
not merely living in America. 

The great question is, Can the people of the world 
have the liberty and self-government which our nation 
and some other nations enjoy, and still have the advan- 
tages of union on a larger scale? Can nations combine 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 299 

in certain ways and yet keep liberty, self-government, 
and their own individual life? We think it would be 
a great loss if all peoples were alike. If Europe were 
all French, or all German, or all Russian ; if the Chinese 
and Japanese were to imitate our clothes and manners 
we should lose much variety. Much as we love Amer- 
ica we should not wish all the world to be Americans. 
What policy has the United States toward other na- 
tions? Does the United States stand for anything in 
international affairs? 

Three policies have been followed — not always, but America's 
for the most part. First, not to meddle in European three 
politics. This seemed at first the safe way to preserve po lcles 
our own liberty. Second, not to permit European 
nations to interfere with republics in either North or 
South America, or to plant new colonies here. This 
policy has been followed partly to protect our own 
liberty, partly to protect other nations in their liber- 
ties. It is called the Monroe Doctrine. Third, to 
cultivate peace with other nations, especially by the 
method of arbitrating disputes instead of going to 
war. The first policy was laid down in Washington's 
Farewell Address ; the second in President Monroe's 
Message to Congress in 1823; the third was urged in 
Washington's address and carried out by a number of 
treaties providing arbitration, and by many other acts, 
notably the provision after the War of 1812 that 
neither Canada nor the United States should have war- 
ships upon the Great Lakes. 

Washington issued his Farewell Address at the close (1) Wash- 
of his presidency. In it he first laid down the great ln & to [ 1 ' s 

principles which the nation should observe, and then , 
i . . °* non " 
the particular rule of not interfering. The general inter- 
principles — " Observe good faith and justice toward ference 



300 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all "■ — 
we shall consider a little later under the third head. 
The rule of non-interference was stated in these words : 
" The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign 
nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to 
have as little political connection as possible." Wash- 
ington points out that European nations have many 
interests and occasions for differences with which Amer- 
ica has nothing to do. He urges, further, that we 
should not meddle with what does not concern us. This 
was of course more clearly the case a hundred years 
ago, when it took much longer to cross the ocean, when 
there were no cables connecting all parts of the world, 
and when the United States had very little trade as 
compared with what it has at present. But even so 
recently as in 1907 the representatives of the United 
States made the following reservation in signing the 
first convention of the Hague Peace Conference: 

" Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so con- 
strued as to require the United States of America to depart 
from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, or inter- 
fering with, or entangling itself in the political questions 
of policy or internal administration of any foreign State; 
nor shall anything contained in the said Convention be 
construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States 
of its traditional attitude toward purely American ques- 
tions/' 

This policy of non-interference has been wise. At 
first our country was so weak that even if it had 
tried to interfere in affairs of European nations 
it could have done little good; it was so far removed 
by the ocean that it could not keep informed; and 
finally when there were so many disputes about who 
should be king, about the method of preserving the 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 301 

balance of power, it would have injured the cause of 
liberty and real union if we had mixed in European 
quarrels. But even before our entrance into the great 
war, the question was raised by many whether we could 
continue the policy of isolation. On the one hand, it 
was evident that our trade and other activities were 
connecting us closely with Europe and Asia. On the 
other, it was urged that we had a duty in promoting 
liberty and justice which required us to have political 
relations with other nations. In the past it may have 
been our first duty to guard our own liberty; the time 
had come, it was felt, when it was our duty to help 
guard the liberty of others. The war brought a de- 
cisive answer to this question and has changed us from 
spectators to participators. 

The second policy, the Monroe Doctrine, was a step (2) The 
in the direction of guarding the liberty of others. It Monroe 
opposed interference by European powers with any 
governments in either North or South America, and 
further declared against any new colonization in this 
half of the world. The occasion for the announcement 
of the Monroe Doctrine was this : A number of the 
colonies in South America had declared their inde- 
pendence of Spain. Several of the European powers 
were considering some plan of aiding Spain in recon- 
quering these colonies. President Monroe, in a message 
to Congress in 1823, made the following statement: 
" We owe it, therefore, to candor and to amicable rela- 
tions existing between the United States and these 
powers to declare that we should consider any attempt 
on their part to extend their system to any portion of 
this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. 
With the existing colonies or dependencies of any Euro- 
pean we have not interfered and shall not interfere. 



Doctrine 



302 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

But with the governments who have declared their inde- 
pendence and maintained it, and whose independence 
we have on great consideration and on just principles 
acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for 
the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any 
other manner their destiny by any European power in 
any other light than a manifestation of an unfriendly 
disposition toward the United States." 

This was the first part of the Monroe Doctrine. 
The second part also is stated in the same message — 
" that the American continents, by the free and inde- 
pendent condition which they have assumed and main- 
tain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects 
for future colonization by any European powers." 
There are certain reasons why this second part may 
come to be of greater importance than it has ever been. 
The past few years have seen a great expansion of 
several of the European countries. Africa has been 
practically all divided up between Great Britain, 
France, Portugal, Germany, and Belgium. Important 
settlements have been made in China by several of the 
powers. There has seemed to be no limit to the amount 
of territory which some of these countries have desired 
to colonize or control, and since Asia and Africa have 
now been occupied, it is quite probable that if it were 
not for the attitude of the United States some of the 
European powers would make new colonies in South 
America. 

There have been two occasions on which the United 
States has brought forward this Monroe Doctrine. 
The first was immediately after our Civil War when 
France was notified that we considered it contrary to 
our policy that the government of Maximilian should 
be supported in Mexico by a French army. France 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 303 

withdrew her troops and Maximilian was overthrown. 
The second occasion was when a dispute arose between 
Great Britain and Venezuela over the boundary between 
British Guiana and Venezuela. The United States 
government notified Great Britain that this case came 
within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine and that the 
United States would not permit any European country 
to forcibly deprive an American state of the right and 
power of self-government and of shaping for itself its 
own political fortunes and destinies. As the question 
raised in this case did not seem to fall under the original 
meaning of the doctrine, the position thus taken by 
the United States threatened to strain friendly rela- 
tions between the United States and Great Britain ; but 
fortunately the matter was peaceably settled. 

So far it might seem that the Monroe Doctrine was Necessary 
entirely one of friendliness for South American coun- changes 

tries and of protection of them ; but it can be easily seen , , 

• mi • Monroe 

that it has possibly another side, for it seems to assume D oc trine 

that the United States has something to say about 
South America. When all the South American coun- 
tries were young and weak this might not have called 
out any objection; but now that several of them have 
become strong, they are rather inclined to resent this 
claim on the part of the United States. And there is 
a further danger. Suppose a European power has 
difficulties with some American country over the pay- 
ment of debts or other injury to European citizens. 
If the United States will not let the European coun- 
tries interfere, must it not then assume some responsi- 
bility for debts and injuries? President Roosevelt 
seemed to assume that it should. He declared: 

" If a nation shows that it knows how to act with decency 
in industrial and political matters, if it keeps order and 



304 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

pays its obligations, then it need fear no interference from 
the United States. Brutal wrong-doing or impotence 
which results in the general loosening of the ties of civilized 
society may finally require intervention by some civilized 
nation, and in the western hemisphere the United States 
cannot ignore its duty." 

It is easy to see that this might come to mean that 
the United States would be a sort of policeman for the 
whole American continent, and this might easily involve 
us in trouble; hence some have urged that we ought 
to drop the Monroe Doctrine. Others suggest that 
instead of attempting to carry alone the responsibility 
of American liberty we cooperate with other American 
peoples in an effort to maintain peace and independence 
for all. Such cooperation was illustrated in the recent 
mediation between the United States and Mexico when 
the Argentine Confederation, Brazil, and Chile coop- 
erated to make a peaceful adjustment. 

President Wilson, in an address to the Pan-American 
Conference, restated our conception of the Monroe 
Doctrine : 

" There is no claim of guardianship or thought of wards 
but, instead a full and honorable association as of partners 
between ourselves and our neighbors, in the interest of all 
America, north and south. . . . All the governments of 
America stand, so far as we are concerned, upon a feeling 
of genuine equality and unquestioned independence. . . . 

" The moral is, that the states of America are not hostile 
rivals but co-operating friends, and that their growing 
sense of community of interest, alike in matters political 
and in matters economic, is likely to give them a new 
significance as factors in international affairs and in the 
political history of the world. It presents them as in a 
very deep and true sense a unit in world affairs, spiritual 
partners, standing together because thinking together, 
quick with common sympathies and common ideals. 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 305 

Separated they are subject to all the cross currents of the 
confused politics of a world of hostile rivalries; united in 
spirit and purpose they cannot be disappointed of their 
peaceful destiny." 

The third policy was marked out in the great words 
of Washington's Farewell Address : " Observe good 
faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace 
and harmony with all." 

As regards "good faith and justice," it would be (3) Good 
pleasanter for American citizens if we could forget our * ait k and 
dealings with the Indians. " Good faith," as applied ^ ^ 
to the dealings of one nation with another, means par- 
ticularly keeping treaties, for a treaty is a contract 
or agreement made with great care and in a solemn 
manner so as to bind both sides as strongly as possible. 
Justice means respecting the rights of others as if they 
were your own. It forbids taking away property by 
force or by tricks when one has no right to it. Any 
strong people, when dealing with a weaker people, needs 
to consider justice. At the same time it is easy to see 
that it is much easier to observe good faith and justice 
toward people who are at about the same stage of 
civilization as we are. For both sides then under- 
stand each other better; they can put themselves 
more easily in the other's place; they sympathize 
more strongly with what the others claim as their 
rights. 

In the case of the Indians the United States always Failure 
recognized that they had a " right of occupancy." in good 
That is, although the Indians did not have a system h 
of owning land so that they fenced off farms or lots i n ^i ans 
and kept written records of every change of ownership, 
they yet had regions in which they and their fathers 
had fished and hunted. They " occupied " these forests 



306 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

and rivers, and the villages where they stayed. The 
early settlers made bargains with them for tracts of 
land, and later the states and the United States made 
treaties with various tribes to exchange their hunting 
grounds for other lands or for money. If a few Indians 
occupied a great tract of land it is clear that it would 
benefit more people if the land should be cultivated and 
made to feed a million people instead of a hundred. 
It was right to compel the Indians to give up some of 
the land they were occupying, provided they were taught 
how to live on less land. But, unfortunately, for a long 
time little was done for the education of the Indians. 
When treaties were made with them it was of the 
highest importance that these should be kept. Some 
white men did not think so. They did not hesitate to 
seize land which the government had granted to the 
Indians. If the Indians objected there would soon be 
a quarrel, and if the Indians attacked the white settlers 
this would be made the excuse for a removal of the 
Indians. 

A commission appointed by President Grant in 1869 
to examine Indian affairs reported: 



" The history of the Government connections with the 
Indians is a shameful record of broken treaties and unful- 
filled promises. The history of the border white man's 
connection with the Indians is a sickening record of mur- 
der, outrage, robbery, and wrongs committed by the former, 
as the rule, and occasional savage outbreaks and unspeak- 
ably barbarous deeds of retaliation by the latter, as the 
exception. 

" Taught by the Government that they had rights entitled 
to respect, when those rights have been assailed by the 
rapacity of the white man, the arm which should have 
been raised to protect them has ever been ready to sustain 
the aggressor." 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 307 

It is no wonder that a writer who had studied the 
records of our dealings with the Indians called her 
book A Century of Dishonor. For although the old 
military idea of honor is that the only very dishonorable 
thing is to be weak or afraid, there is another idea 
which makes it dishonorable to break your word, or to 
treat a weaker person unjustly. President Grant began 
a better way of dealing with Indians. Schools were 
encouraged. A particularly outrageous violation of a 
treaty with the Ponca Indians in 1879 aroused public 
feeling and associations were formed to aid the Indians. 
Unscrupulous individuals are still constantly aiming 
to defraud them. They frequently seek to do this 
by laws cleverly designed, so that they may outwit the 
Indians in a legal way. But those who believe in justice 
and good faith are stronger and more awake than for- 
merly. Many of the Indians who have been educated 
are now helping the rest to understand and defend their 
rights. What is perhaps more important, many of the 
Indians have learned to farm, to raise cattle, to live 
in the white man's way, and so to gain more respect 
from those who did not have any scruple against cheat- 
ing or robbing them when they lived so differently. It 
is the highest test of a strong man or a strong nation 
to be just to the weak. 

In dealing with other nations it may be fairly said 
that we have for the most part observed good faith 
and justice. In deciding whether we have always done 
this it is not entirely safe to trust our own judgment. 
In a business transaction it often occurs that one man 
thinks he has observed good faith, whereas the other 
man in the transaction thinks differently. Such a case 
can be brought before an impartial court and decided. 
In the past there has been no way to compel a nation 



308 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

to come before a court; so many cases are left unde- 
cided. After a long time, when the heat of strong 
feeling on each side is over, historians can usually reach 
a conclusion. But in any given case it is hardly safe 
to judge ourselves without first hearing whether other 
peoples have anything to say. Perhaps the four cases 
in which the action of the United States has been 
criticised most severely are (1) the Mexican War; 
(2) the war with Spain, and soon after with the 
Filipinos; (3) the controversy with Colombia over the 
Panama Canal Zone; (4) the question of Panama Canal 
tolls. 
Mexican In the case of the Mexican War many Americans 

War protested at the time. They believed its motive was 

to secure territory for the extension of slavery. In 
his memoirs President Grant, who had himself been a 
soldier in that war, said of it : 

" I was bitterly opposed to the measure (annexation of 
Texas) and to this day regard the war which resulted as 
one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against 
a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following 
the bad example of European monarchies in not con- 
sidering justice in their desire to acquire additional ter- 
ritory." 

It has been defended on the ground that states 
secured from Mexico as the result of the war, — Cali- 
fornia, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada — have had 
a far happier history since than they would have had 
under Mexican rule. This is no doubt true, but it does 
not make the war just. It is quite possible that a man 
who breaks into the house of a gambler, or a miser, or 
a rich idler, may make a much better use of the money 
than would the owner, but this is not enough to justify 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 309 

burglary. Joseph was sold into captivity by his 
brothers, and it turned out well in certain respects for 
all ; but this did not make the brothers' act a good one. 
It seems probable that historians will look upon the 
Mexican War in much the same way. 

The war with Spain was very different. The two The war 
chief causes were the unhappy conditions in Cuba, and wit h 
the sudden sinking of the United States ship, the Maine, s P am 
in Havana harbor. There was a genuine desire to help 
the Cubans to liberty and prosperity; there was also 
a sudden resentment when it was generally supposed 
that the Maine had been sunk by some Spanish agency. 
In the case of Cuba it seemed as though Spain had 
proved itself unable to give peace and happiness to the 
island. And the fact that Cuba was not made a part 
of the United States possessions but was set free to 
govern itself went to show that our interest in it was 
not selfish. The later war with the Filipinos was not 
so simple. People in the United States were not agreed 
as to its good faith and justice. One American general 
was retired from active service and reprimanded by 
President Roosevelt because of an order to " kill every- 
thing over ten." The testimony before the Senate 
Commission showed about all the kinds of horrible 
things that occur in a war between peoples of different 
races. On the other hand, the American government 
of the islands promoted education, brought about great 
improvement in health, and is helping trade and agri- 
culture. At first some Americans were carried away 
with the idea of having an empire in the Pacific, and 
gaining great wealth from the Philippines, but this was 
not the sober thought of the American people. There 
is a steadily growing purpose to make the Philippines 
an independent state when they are capable of ruling 



310 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

themselves and of keeping their freedom against others 
who might seize them. New events may upset present 
plans, but it may fairly be said that the intention of 
the responsible American people today is to be just to 
the Filipinos — an intention which has been put into 
the maxim, " The Philippines for the Filipinos." 
Panama The Panama Zone controversy with Colombia is too 

recent for discussion in a book of this kind. Mr. 
Roosevelt, who was President at the time when the 
Panama Republic was recognized by the United States, 
maintains vigorously that Colombia lost all her rights 
to Panama and should not be paid. Some believed 
strongly that the United States was unjust to Colombia, 
and during the Taft administration a treaty was pre- 
sented to the Senate providing for the payment of 
$10,000,000 in return for the Canal Zone. Colombia 
refused to accept this sum, and demanded that the 
whole controversy be submitted to arbitration. Again, 
under the Wilson administration, a treaty providing 
for the payment of $25,000,000 to Panama was signed 
by the ministers of both countries, but so far has not 
been ratified by the United States Senate. Perhaps 
fifty years hence a fair judgment on the case can be 
formed. 
Panama The last case is clearer. The United States and 

Canal Great Britain made a treaty to build the Panama Canal 

jointly. Later the United States wished to build and 
control it alone. A treaty was made with Great Britain 
to make this possible, and as a part of the treaty all 
nations were to pay equal rates for using the canal. 
Then Congress passed a law giving American ships in 
the coasting trade free passage. It was claimed by the 
authors of this law that the treaty meant that we were 
to charge the same rates tg all nations except the 



tolls 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 311 

United States. Great Britain objected that this had 
not been her understanding, and in order to keep good 
faith Congress repealed its law. Now all ships, whether 
American or foreign, pay tolls at the same rates. Such 
action is in accord with Washington's advice. 

We come finally to the precept : Cultivate peace and Peace and 
harmony with all. One of the most important ways in harmony 
which the United States has tried to cultivate peace 
and harmony has been in settling disputes by arbitra- 
tion. President Eliot names this as one of five con- 
tributions which America has made to civilization. The 
first treaty of modern times which provided for arbitra- 
tion was the so-called Jay treaty between the United 
States and Great Britain. This was negotiated by 
John Jay in 1794 and provided that a number of points 
should be referred to commissioners. From this time 
on such treaties became more and more common between 
civilized nations until in the first decade of this century 
one hundred and eighty such agreements were signed, 
and from the date of the Jay treaty up to the end 
of the nineteenth century two hundred and sixteen de- 
cisions had been rendered. Several of these have been 
on matters of great importance which might easily have 
led to war. Such was the decision of the famous 
Alabama case. During the Civil War a ship was built 
for the Southern Confederacy in an English shipyard. 
When ready it was turned over to Confederate officers, 
named the Alabama, and used to destroy the commerce 
of the Northern States. The United States govern- 
ment claimed that England was responsible for the 
damage thus inflicted, because it had permitted the 
Alabama to put to sea in spite of warning that it was 
intended for a warship. People in the North felt very 
bitter. The claims were finally referred to a tribunal 



312 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Can we 
remain 
aloof from 
other 
nations ? 



Other 
countries 
are closer 
than in 
1797 



of eminent men, which met at Geneva, and after hearing 
the evidence and arguments of both sides, awarded the 
United States thirteen and a half millions of dollars 
as damages. Perhaps the money was less important 
than the satisfaction in being able to present the case 
to a fair court and having a decision that we had a 
just cause. It stings and makes men bitter when they 
believe themselves unjustly treated and cannot get any 
hearing. Other very important questions arbitrated 
by the United States have related to fisheries, and to 
the boundary between Alaska and Canada. 

So much we have done to cultivate peace. But now 
we have entered upon a new stage in our career. To 
carry out the real spirit of Washington's advice we 
first attempted to bring the great war to a close; then 
entered it ourselves. Three forces have been at work 
to compel a change in our relations to Europe. 

First we are no longer so far from Europe as we 
were, and Asia is nearly as close a neighbor to our 
western coast. When Washington wrote, it took many 
weeks to cross the ocean. There was no telegraph or 
cable. Each nation lived mainly on its own resources, 
that is, it raised its own grain and other means of 
obtaining food and did comparatively little trading with 
others in the necessaries of life. Hence it was possible 
to promote peace chiefly in a negative way. All this is 
changed. Europe is scarcely farther from our Atlantic 
coast than our own Pacific states. Indeed, so far as 
the rates for exchanging goods are concerned, it is very 
much cheaper for the states on the Atlantic coast to 
trade with Europe than with remote parts of our own 
country. Further, we have been borrowing money in 
great amounts from Europe and Europe has in this 
great war begun to borrow money from the United 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 313 

States and probably will continue to do so after the 
war is over. Many believe that it would be easily 
possible, with modern ships and submarines, for Europe 
to land an army upon our shores. When one European 
country is at war with another it almost certainly 
injures or affects our commerce. The whole world is 
now so intricately bound together that any great waste 
of life or property such as is caused by war must make, 
broadly speaking, the whole world poorer. If we have 
goods to sell it is desirable that other nations should 
be able to buy. They cannot have as much means to 
buy if they are losing life and wealth in war. Evi- 
dently we are being more and more closely connected 
with the welfare of all peoples. 

Second: new forces of a positive type at work have Commerce, 
been pointing toward a greater unity among all peoples, invention 
We have just spoken in the preceding paragraph of an . 
our relation as buyers and sellers, as borrowers and imite the 
creditors. Another very important fact is that with world 
our telegraphs and frequent mails, with the greater 
amount of travel between people of different countries, 
with the multitude of immigrants who have come to us 
from Europe, and with the lesser number who return 
to Europe after living here for a time, we are coming 
to understand other peoples better. They are not so 
foreign as they were. It is one striking illustration of 
this that representatives of the different nations now 
meet together and arrange common postal laws so 
that a two-cent stamp is of the same color among all 
peoples in the postal union; and the same is true for 
the stamps of the other denominations. Banks arrange 
to pay checks in any part of the world through their 
allied banks. Men in various scientific societies meet 
together and consider in common the discoveries and 



314 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 



Coopera- 
tion 

needed to 
protect 
liberty 



and 
democracy 



inventions that will promote human welfare, the meth- 
ods of relieving poverty and sickness, of administering 
law and preventing crime. In all these ways the world 
is becoming united. 

Third : cooperation in so many ways suggests that it 
may be possible to cooperate in protecting liberty and 
doing justice. Cooperation is in some ways a larger 
idea than peace. Peace suggests that I am not to inter- 
fere with any one by violence. Cooperation suggests 
that I shall positively help him. Now the nations are 
positively helping each other in many ways. Will they 
not be forced to carry out the thought further and 
help each other to maintain liberty and justice? 

Just how this can be done it is yet too early to say. 
One suggestion is that a League of Peace be formed 
after the present war is over, which shall not merely 
encourage nations to make agreements but shall compel 
them to keep agreements, which shall guard the smaller 
nations from having their liberty taken away, which 
shall free the peoples of Europe from the ever-present 
fear that has oppressed them so long, and led them to 
spend such great sums in constant preparation for war 
and to maintain such enormous armies. It is clear 
that unless something of this sort can be done humanity 
cannot make more than very slow progress. We now 
even in this country expend enormous sums for our 
small army and navy. Unless some better method of 
protection is devised the expenditure that each country 
will think necessary in order to protect itself from 
others will increase until it will take all that the country 
can produce. Education and all kinds of progress will 
be stinted. 

And if we believe sincerely in democracy we shall 
need especially to cooperate with others for its defense. 



militarism 



UNITED STATES AND OTHER NATIONS 315 

For if there is any enemy to democracy it is militarism. 
Militarism means the doctrine that military power 
ought to be the great aim of the state and that the 
military class ought to be the ruling class. In some Why- 
European countries the military class itself sincerely F fi 
holds this doctrine. Further, this class has been so to 
efficient in many ways that it has been able to con- emocrac y 
vince many of other classes that the only safety of the 
nation lies in the militarist system. Such a military 
class despises democracy in the sense of self-govern- 
ment, for it thinks itself the only class fit to govern. 
It may put this belief into the old language that it 
governs by divine right. It ridicules democracy in the 
sense of equality, for it considers itself superior to 
other classes. It is often brutal and contemptuous 
toward civilians. Nations that prefer other ends than 
power are looked down upon by such a military class 
as weak and degenerate. It is indeed entirely probable 
that peaceful and democratic nations will be at a dis- 
advantage in resisting a sudden attack by a militarist 
power. Perhaps they cannot defend themselves singly 
without setting up a military class of their own. Their 
best, if not their only course, is therefore to combine 
for protection and peace. The only hope for pro- 
tecting our own democracy and for helping the growth 
of democracy in other countries is through positive 
cooperation. In President Wilson's great words, " The 
world must be made safe for democracy." 



CHAPTER XXX 



WAR AND RIGHT 



Is war 
ever 
right ? 



Arguments 
for war 



OUR policy has been to cultivate peace. Should 
a nation ever go to war? There are three 
views about this which have been so much dis- 
cussed recently that it is well to state them. 

First: war is a good thing. Second: war is always 
evil and always wrong. Third: while war is always an 
evil it is not the worst thing ; war is sometimes right. 

Let us see what the arguments are for each of these 
three views. We shall have to condense the arguments 
so that they will be somewhat like a debater's brief. 
The militarist argues : 

War is a good thing, for — 

(a) War makes men brave; in peace they become 
weak and cowardly. 

(6) It is through war in the past that the brave 
nations have prevailed over the weak ones and so have 
survived. If there had been no war there would have 
been no selection of the most efficient peoples. 

(c) War makes men think of something besides 
themselves. It holds up an ideal of loyalty and patri- 
otism. In peace men become selfish and think only of 
private gain. It is a more glorious thing to die for 
country in battle than to live a selfish or idle or luxuri- 
ous life and die of disease. 

(d) War unites all the members of a nation into one 
strong state which is then able to provide for science 
and art, for education, for the care of the laboring 

316 



WAR AND RIGHT 317 

people. Bismarck held that the three wars fought 
by Prussia under his advice, in 1864 against Denmark, 
in 1866 against Austria, and in 1870 against France, 
were the only way to make a united Germany. It was 
only by blood and iron — not by talk or negotiation — 
that this could be done. 

(e) War is the only way to make a change in the 
territory of peoples corresponding to the changes in 
their needs and ability. If a nation at one time is 
strong and covers a large territory, but later becomes 
degenerate and does nothing for progress, it ought not 
to hold all its territory as against a nation which is 
progressive, ia nation which will make advances in 
science, education, and other forms of civilization. 

On the other hand, the pacifist urges : Arguments 

(a) War is simply murder on a large scale. Killing against 
is killing. To kill a million men is a million times as war 
bad as to kill one man. Wearing a uniform does not 
change the essence of the act. Fundamentally, war 
means killing innocent men who usually are not at all 
responsible for whatever wrong their government has 
done. 

(&) War makes men brutal. It compels men to 
stifle every tender or generous feeling toward their 
opponents. It frequently leads men, under the plea of 
military necessity, to kill women and children, to tor- 
ture people, and in general to outrage every decent 
feeling. 

(c) War crushes all freedom of action, of speech, 
and even of thought. There is no chance for the soldier 
to discuss or question whether he is doing right or 
wrong. He not only simply gives up his life blindly 
but also allows the government to take the place of his 
conscience. Even men not in the army are frequently 



318 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

punished if they question in any way the policy of the 
government in war. 

(d) While it is true that war compels men to be 
loyal this is not necessarily a gain unless they are to 
be loyal to a good cause. To be loyal to a gang of mur- 
derers and plunderers is not made any better by calling 
the gang a state and the head of the gang a king or 
a government. Most wars have been simply raids for 
conquest or plunder by such an organized gang. 

(e) War is not only wicked, it is foolish. To con- 
quer does not profit a nation; it could gain far more 
by peaceful trade. War wastes resources of men, loads 
the common laborer with a burden of debt, and prevents 
him from bettering himself. It is the great enemy of 
democracy. 

(f) War declares might is right. It does not follow 
that the nation that can fight best is the one that will 
promote civilization. Greece was the most civilized na- 
tion of the Old World. It was conquered by Romans 
who were better fighters. It came very near being con- 
quered by the Persians. In recent times some of the 
small peoples of Europe have been foremost in their 
contributions to science, music, and literature. 

War an So much for the militarist and the pacifist. The 

evil but third view would agree with the militarist that war 

not the j lag jj e ip e( j m ake men brave, has been the way in which 

evil nations have been formed which have made possible the 

progress in arts and sciences. It would agree with the 

pacifist that war also tends to make men brutal, that 

it crushes out freedom of thought and speech, that it 

is stupid and wasteful from a financial point of view. 

In other words, that war is an evil and not a good. 

But the crucial question for this third point of view is, 



WAR AND RIGHT 319 

Is war the worst thing that can happen? And it an- 
swers, Bad as war is, there is one thing worse: that is, 
to permit liberty and justice to be crushed out without 
resisting. It ought to be possible, we say, to appeal to 
man's better nature, to get men to listen to reason, 
or to let some fair-minded third person decide quarrels. 
But unfortunately some men will not listen to reason; 
some men are greedy ; some are violent ; and our whole 
belief in government with our courts and our police 
rests on the view that if a man will not respect the 
rights of others, especially of the weak, he must be 
restrained. If, while I am standing by, a man comes 
along and attempts to murder a woman or a child, it 
is my duty to prevent him from doing what he wishes. 
If there is no other way to prevent him I ought to use 
force, and this may mean that I shall have to kill him ; 
but it is better to kill him than to allow him to go 
on and murder. For if I look on and permit I virtually 
become his accomplice. 

The argument that there may be a just war is based Force in 
on the same principle as the argument for controlling defense of 
murderers and thieves. The national state, at first the Ilber v 
creation of force, has been growing step by step more ,- ust j ce 
democratic and free. Its laws, at first the decrees of 
kings who claimed to rule by divine right, have been 
revised and rewritten in order to make them more just. 
It has a duty to its citizens to protect them from vio- 
lence ; it has a larger duty to prevent liberty and democ- 
racy from being crushed. If no other way is left open 
it may use force to aid such " a universal dominion of 
right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring 
peace and safety to all nations, and make the world 
itself at last free." 

It is for war in defense of liberty that we have the 



320 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

lines of Lowell that are on the Shaw Memorial in 
Boston : 

" The brave soul of him lives on to light men's feet 
Where death for noble ends makes dying sweet." 

It is for death in such a cause that the lines of Emerson 
appeal to most men's moral sense : 

" Though love repine, and reason chafe, 
There came a voice without reply, — 
' 'Tis man's perdition to be safe, 
When for the truth he .ought to die/ " 

War a Yet, when we have said this, it still remains true that 

crude war even in a just cause shows that we are still very 

method backward in civilization. In early savage society men 
fought over a great many questions which we now settle 
by appeal to a judge. As nations we are still only 
partly civilized so long as we go to war when some 
other way of establishing justice or of defending liberty 
could be found. Sometimes a little patience will achieve 
a great deal; for example, it is now believed by many, 
if not by most of those who were at the time well 
informed, that President McKinley could have carried 
out his plan to secure by peaceful negotiation with 
Spain her withdrawal from Cuba. Negotiations were 
in progress for this; but when the Maine was sunk 
people were too impatient to wait any longer. It is 
easy to see now how much better it might have been 
if the slaves could have been emancipated without war. 
Few now in the South would say that such a system 
as that of slavery could have lasted many generations 
in the face of the growing public sentiment of the 
world. It would of course have been a small matter to 
pay a liberal sum to all slave owners as compensation 



WAR AND RIGHT 321 

for setting the slaves free in comparison with what the 
war actually cost in money ; terrible loss of life, and the 
creation of bitter feelings which cannot yet be said to 
have died out entirely, might also have been avoided. 

War persists because mankind has as yet risen but 
a little way on the ladder. The nation is a better 
group for keeping the peace than was the early clan, 
and a democratic nation is a great advance beyond the 
king and his warriors. Loyalty to a democratic nation 
is a nobler devotion than loyalty to a clan or a chief 
or a king. Patriotism is a quality we honor. But a 
nation, like a clan, is a group which has its defects as 
well as its values. So far as it means cooperation it 
is good; so far as it limits cooperation with other 
peoples, or what is worse, sets men in hostility to 
other peoples, it is bad. Loyalty to a great cause, 
such as freedom, is noble ; but we have come to see that 
only by justice and cooperation can even freedom be 
secure. Loyalty to mankind must finally be supreme; 
international law, international cooperation, interna- 
tional friendship must increase. This may not mean 
that nations will give up their individual lives, or cease 
to exist, any more than the family ceased to exist when 
nations were formed. It means, first, that we shall 
cultivate in science, in trade, in art, in communication 
of all sorts, a wider knowledge of mankind, a more 
intelligent sympathy, a genuine respect, and thus pre- 
pare for what an American philosopher has called the 
Great Community. It means, secondly, that nations 
will have to keep international law and submit their 
disputes to a better tribunal than war. 

For, when all is said, it remains true that might does 
not make right. A war decides which side is stronger; 
it does not decide which side is right. If we were to 



322 DEMOCRACY IN THE NEW WORLD 

look back through history we should probably find 

about as many cases where the wrong has won as 

Might where the right has won. Some have argued that we 

does not must suppose that God will always decide for the right 

make j n a struggle. So far as we can see, this is not the 

rig case when the struggle is one of physical force. People 

used to think that the way to decide whether a man 

was innocent or guilty was to leave it to God. They 

would throw the man into the water or make him walk 

over hot plowshares. We have concluded that God 

has given man reason by which to decide such questions, 

and we think that trial by jury is a better plan to 

find out innocence than is trial by ordeal. So formerly 

in battle kings used to think that their national god 

would be on their side and would enable them to win 

the victory; but we have seen how many good causes 

have been trampled down, how many noble men and 

women have perished through violence, so that it has 

sometimes seemed to be, 

Right forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the 
throne." 

On the whole, ideas and discussion, the work and ex- 
ample of noble men and women, have been greater 
powers than war for the spread of liberty and justice. 
The noblest words of faith which I know, and those 
which may well serve as the maxim in life for every 
American citizen in our dealings with other nations 
as well as in our own affairs, are the words of Lincoln: 



INDEX 



Amendments to Federal Consti- 
tution, early, 175 f.; four- 
teenth, 258 f . ; sixteenth and 
seventeenth, 265-67; difficult, 
263 f. 

Angell, James B., 177. 

Arbitration, international, 311 f. 

Autocracy, Milton on, 132; 
tends to aggression, 228, 315. 

Ball, John, 130. 

Blackstone, 133. 

Blood revenge, 24. 

Bliicher, 238. 

"Bosses," 237. 

Bradford, Governor, 168, 185- 

87. 
Bryce, James, on the federal 

system, 195 f.; on Tammany 

Hall, 234. 
Burke, Edmund, 139. 
Burns, Robert, 104, 139 f . 
Business, affected with a public 

interest, 219. 

Capital and capitalism, 157- 
162; power of, 162-64; atti- 
tude toward labor, 217 f. 

Chivalry, 72 f. 

Cicero, 273 f . 

Clan, 16-20; its customs, 20- 
26; values, 28-30, 32 f.; de- 
fects, 27 f ., 30-31, 33, 34. 

Classes, not in earliest society, 
29 ; in early England, 39 ff . ; 
in Domesday Book, 42; how 
formed, 42 ff.; ideals of, 
65 ff.; source of standards, 
76, 80; middle class, 81, 93- 
95, 149; as aid to liberty, 
123; in New World, 149, 
289 f . ; as due to Industrial 



Revolution, 164, 293; Hamil- 
ton on, 197; wage-earning, 
215-18; arguments for in- 
equality in, 269 ff. ; affected 
by the frontier, 291; present 
problems of, 293 f . ; see 
Democracy. 

Class legislation, 114, 284 f. 

Common fields, 37. 

Constitution, purpose of, 187, 
189-91; criticisms upon, 
187 f. ; as adjustment of con- 
flicting interests, 192-201 ; 
slavery in, 199, 204; as 
fundamental law, 260 ; amend- 
ment of, see Amendments. 

Cooperation, in the clan, 16-20, 
29; limits, 27, 33; in the 
state, 37, 42 f.; in exchange 
of goods, 81 ff.; in towns, 94; 
in industry and business, 
163; in the union of Ameri- 
can states, 183 ff.; in nation, 
297; in international rela- 
tions, 298, 313; necessary to 
protect liberty and democ- 
racy, 314; larger idea than 
peace, 314. 

Coppage vs. Kansas, 260. 

Corporation, 160 f . 

Courage, in clan life, 33; in 
society of warriors, 67 f . 

Courts, manor, 40, 45, 59; the 
king's, 47, 50, 59-62, 126; of 
chancery or equity, 130; as 
interpreters and makers of 
law, 255-259; judges of con- 
stitutionality, 259-66. See 
Law, Supreme Court. 

Crafts, 19, 81, 85 f ., 88, 89, 90, 
93, 96. 



324 



INDEX 



Credit, 159 f. 

Customs, of the clan, 20-26, 30, 
31, 34; contrasted with law, 
59-61; of merchants, 99-100. 

Declaration of Independence, 
133, 171, 172, 183, 273, 274 f. 

Democracy, favored by town 
life, 88; growth in early 
state, 111-15; limits of, 116; 
law as aid to, 127 f.; pro- 
moted by religious teachers, 
129 f.; by philosophers, 130; 
based on freedom and respon- 
sibility, 141-43; in New 
World settlers, 149-153; in- 
fluence of frontiers on, 152, 
291; two meanings of, 221; 
four reasons for self-govern- 
ment, 222-28; blocked by the 
Constitution and courts, 261; 
as equality, 268-83; progress 
and present tasks of, 284-96; 
opposed by militarism, 47, 49, 
315. See Autocracy, Equal- 
ity, Liberty, Militarism, Self- 
Government. 

Domesday Book, 42, 53. 

Education, necessary for free- 
dom, 102, 115, 119, 120, 177- 
79; makes for international 
harmony, 313, 321. See In- 
vention, Knowledge. 

Egypt, slavery in, 44; justice 
in, 135. 

Emerson, R. W., 320. 

Equality and inequality, as 
theories of society, 268 ff. ; 
arguments for each, 269-82; 
five kinds of, 284 ff.; before 
the law, 284 f.; in voting, 
285-89; social, 289-94; in 
business, 294. 

Equity, 130. 

Franklin, Benjamin, 170, 190. 

Freedom, in savage life, 31; in 
early England, 41 f., 93; de- 
velopment of, 101 ff. ; mean- 



ings of, 101 ff. ; and respon- 
sibility, 141-43. See Liberty. 

Free men, in Domesday, 42; 
in Magna Carta, 106, 121. 
See Liberty. 

Frontier, influence of, 152 f., 
291. 

Gentlemen and gentry, 73-76, 
93, 149 f. 

Gilds, 86-88. 

Goodnow, Frank J., 263 f. 

Government, in early clan by 
custom and old men, 20 ff. ; 
by lord and his court, 40; 
by king and state, 46 ff., 55 ff., 
112; by law, 59, 127 f.; en- 
larged to include Parliament, 
112-14; based on consent of 
governed, 133, 171 f.; oppres- 
sion by feared, 174, not now 
chief danger, 179-81; organi- 
zation of national in United 
States, 183 ff.; powers of 
federal, 193; checks and bal- 
ances in, 198 ff. ; democratic, 
221-29; by special interest, 
232-39; progress toward de- 
mocracy, 241 ff. See Consti- 
tution, Courts, Democracy, 
King, Law, Party, President, 
Self-Government, Suffrage. 

Grant, U. S„ 306 f ., 308. 

Groups, clan as early, 16; 
state, 46; warrior, 36 ff., 66; 
gentry, 74 f.; morals of, 76. 
See Labor Unions, State, 
Town, Union. 

Hale, E. E, 148. 

Hamilton, Alexander, 197, 200, 

242. 
Hobbes, 274. 
Honesty, among traders, 98 f.; 

required by gilds, 99, 100. 
Honor, 67; as ideal of warrior 

class, 67-76; other ideals, 

97 f ., 307. See Honesty. 

Ideals, of warrior class, ch. 
VII; of knight, 72; of gen- 



INDEX 



325 



tleman, 73-79; of middle 
class, 96-100; of America, 
148 ff. 

Impeachment, 251 f. 

Imperialism, 166. 

Income tax, 266. 

Indians, American, mode of 
life, 9, 11, 37, 272; relations 
with United States, 305-7. 

Initiation, 22. 

Initiative, 250. 

Insurance, and government, 
235 f . 

Interests, adjustment of in 
Constitution, 197-201 ; of 
capital and labor, 214 ff.; 
farming vs. manufacturing, 
243; special, seek to control, 
232-39. 

International relations, 298 ff.; 
recent change in policy of 
United States, 312 f.; peace 
and cooperation, 320-22. 

Inventions, 6-8, 154 f ., 203, 276. 

Invisible government, 232. 

Ives vs. South Buffalo R. R., 
265. 

James, William, 281. 
Jarrett, Devereux, 290. 
Jefferson, Thomas, 34, 175, 205, 

243, 274, 291 f. 
Jury, 62, 109-111, 173. 

King, head of warriors, 36; in- 
creasing powers of, 49-54; as 
keeper of order, 57 f . ; pro- 
moter of trade, 51; and jury, 
109; in relation to law, 126- 
28; tendency to wars of 
aggression, 228. See Democ- 
racy, Militarism. 

Kipling, Rudyard, 277. 

Knight, 72. 

Knowledge, of early man, 6-8, 
33; necessary for progress, 
34; favored by towns, 91-93; 
necessary for liberty, 115 f., 
119, 177 f; tends toward in- 
ternational harmony, 313. 



Labor, despised by gentry, 43, 
66, 78, 80, 93; performed by 
monks, 96; made honorable, 
97; affected by Industrial 
Revolution, 154-57 ; division 
of, 10-12, 43, 156. See Labor 
Unions. 

Labor unions, 88, 157, 215 f., 
219 f. 

Lady, 75 f. 

Land, ownership of, 62-65, 150- 
52. 

Langland, 136. 

Law, the common, 59-62; com- 
pared with customs, 60 f . ; de- 
fense of liberty, 62, 107 f., 
125-28 ; worked injustice, 
139; built up by judicial de- 
cisions, 225-58; by interpreta- 
tions, 258-60; constitution as 
fundamental, 260. See Con- 
stitution, Courts. 

Law Merchant, 99 f . 

League of Peace, 314. 

Liberty, protected by common 
law, 61 f.; of the gild, 87; 
promoted by towns, 89, 94; 
six meanings of, 101-15; na- 
tional, 103-6; special privi- 
lege, 45, 87, 94, 106 f., 120- 
23, 125; civil, 61 f., 107-111, 
172-74; political, 111-15, 121- 
23, 172 f ., 286-88 ; how gained, 
117-28; religious, 138, 168, 
173; value of, 1051, 141; 
meaning of in 1776, 174; edu- 
cation as aid to, 177-179; 
present problems of, 180-82; 
and union, 207 ; threatened by 
war, 317; war in defense of, 
319 f. See Freedom, Rights. 

Lincoln, Abraham, quoted, 168, 
221, 223; on slavery issue, 
205, 207; on the Supreme 
Court's decision, 262 f.; on 
the meaning of the Declara- 
tion, 275; on might and 
right, 322. 

Locke, John, 132 f ., 274. 

Long ballot, 239. 



326 



INDEX 



Lords, 39, 45, 70. 

Lowell, J. R., 320, 322. 

Loyalty, to group, 32 ; to a lord, 
70 f.; to a nation, 206 f., 
297 f.; to mankind, 321. 

Machines, 154-56. 

Madison, James, 197 f., 242. 

Magna Carta, 106, 118, 121. 

Majority rule, 224 f. 

Manor, 39-42. 

Marbury vs. Madison, 260. 

Marriage, 22. 

Marshall, John, 261. 

Mayflower, 147, 185-87. 

McLaughlin, A. C, 198. 

Merchants, early, usually for- 
eigners, 98, 148 ; in town life, 
81; early morals of, 98 f.; 
customs and law, 99 f . 

Mexican War, 308 f . 

Militarism, what it is, 315; 
origin, 42-45; ideals of, 77- 
80; opposed to democracy, 
47, 49 ; contemptuous of non- 
military, 66, 77 f., 315; its 
view of war, 315 f.; criticism 
of, 318, 320-22. See also Pa- 
cifism, War. 

Milton, John, 131 f. 

Money, 159. 

Monroe Doctrine, 299, 301-5. 

More, Thomas, 136-38. 

Nation, the United States as, 
168, 183, 207, 297 f.; limits 
of a single, 298; relations to 
other nations, 297-315. See 
International Relations,State, 
Union. 

Order, 55 ff. 

Ordinance of 1787, 176, 177. 

Pacifism, its arguments, 317 f. 
Panama Canal tolls, 308, 310. 
Panama Zone controversy, 308, 

310. 
Parliament, 54, 112-14, 247. 
Party, early fear of, 242; 

agency of government, 241- 

46, 248 f. 



Paul, St., 103, 273. 

Peace, 55; the king's, 57 f.; 
United States policy, 299, 
311-15; as ideal compared 
with cooperation, 314. See 
Cooperation, Pacifism, War. 

Peasant Revolt, 118 f., 129. 

Philip, Captain, 73. 

Philippines, 309 f. 

Pilgrims, 147, 168, 185-87. 

Plato, 137. 

Post office, 203 f . 

President, of the United States, 
original idea of the office, 
198 f ., 245 ; as representative 
of the people, 246, 248 f.; 
election of, 241; head of his 
party, 248 f . 

Progress, main stages, 8; tasks 
of, 34; in government, lib- 
erty, democracy, interna- 
tional relations, union, see 
these titles. 

Property, in land, 62-65; aid 
to freedom, 124; More on, 
137 f.; regarded as natural 
right, 172, 173; in the Con- 
stitution, 199. 

Race problems, 208-14. 

Railways, aids to commerce, 
155; capitalization of, 160; 
attempted to control govern- 
ment, 235. 

Recall, 251; of judges, 252-54. 

Referendum, 250 f 

Religion, and liberty, 129 f., 
135, 137, 138, 173. See also 
Liberty. 

Revolution, American, of 1776, 
153, 291. 

Revolution, Industrial, nature 
of, 153-62; problems set by, 
162-67; makes classes, 293, 
and also promotes democracy 
in labor, 293 f . 

Rights, natural, 103, 133 f., 
170; in Virginia Declaration, 
171; in Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, 171. See Liberty, 
civil. 



INDEX 



327 



Robin Hood, 136. 

Roosevelt, Theodore, 303, 310. 

Rousseau, 134. 

Savage society, chs. I, II, III. 

Scott, Walter, 18, 19, 37. 

Self-government, democracy as, 
221-29; obstacles to, 230-40; 
progress toward, by parties, 
241-45; in choice of Presi- 
dent, 241 ; further measures 
toward, 250 ff. See Democ- 
racy, Government. 

Serfs. See Slavery, Villein. 

Shay's Rebellion, 189 f. 

Short Ballot, 240. 

Sidney, Philip, 73. 

Slavery, 36, 43, 44, 103, 164, 
176, 204, 223. 

Solomon, 14, 90. 

Spain, war with, 309. 

State, formed by band of war- 
riors, 46 ff.; expansion of, 
49 ; source of order, 55 ff. ; of 
common law, 59. See De- 
mocracy, Government, King. 

Suffrage, Parliamentary, 113 f., 
247; qualifications for, in 
colonies and United States, 
286-88; equal, 288. 

Supreme Court, of the United 
States, 230 f.; place in Con- 
stitution, 199, 230 f.; as in- 
terpreter of the Constitution, 
2601; Lincoln on, 262 f.; 
various decisions of, 219, 266. 

Taboo, 11, 24, 25, 26, 30. 
Taft, William H., 213, 310; on 

judiciary, 254, 263. 
Tammany Hall, 233 f . 
Taxation, 52 f . 
Tithing, 58. 
Tools, 7, 13, 154. 
Town, the, origin, 83; classes 

in, 84, favored liberty, 89, 94. 

94. 
Trade, gifts as, 13, 14; favored 



by kings, 51 ; connected with 
growth of towns and middle 
class, 81-95. 

Trade-unions. See Labor Unions. 

Turner, Frederick, 291. 

Union, as source of power and 
progress, 8; limits in clan 
life, 33 ; larger of state, 37 ff. ; 
of towns, 81; of gilds, 86-88, 
of factory workers, 157; 
among the early colonists, 
183; need of closer, 189; pro- 
vided by constitution, 192- 
201; further growth of, 202- 
7; threatened by slavery is- 
sue, 204-6, problems of race, 
208-14; of capital and labor, 
214-20; among nations, 298, 
313. 

Utopia, 136-38. 

Village, 37, 38, 39, 46, 63. 
Villeins, 41, 42, 44 f., 114, 118 f. 

War and warriors, 36, 42-45; 
ideals of, 65-80; defects in 
warrior's courage, 68; in 
loyalty, 71; Civil, the, 183, 
207, 209; Mexican, 308 f.; 
with Spain, 309; arguments 
for, 316 f.; against, 317 f.; 
not the worst evil, 319 f.; 
shows backwardness of civili- 
zation, 320-22. 

Washington, George, 190 f ., 
293; on foreign policy of the 
United States, 299, 305, 
311 f. 

Webster, Daniel, 216 f. 

Wilson, Woodrow, on democracy 
vs. autocracy, 228 f . ; on Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 304; also 213, 
248, 315. 

Women, in savage life, 10, 11, 
17, 23; in the manor, 47; in 
the state, 48 f . ; in chivalry, 
72; voters, 288. 



